Delhi High Court
Aseen Kochar vs State on 29 November, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.11.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2446/2018
ASEEN KOCHAR ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Singh, Mr. S.K. Gautam, Mr. Vipin Singh
Raghav, Mrs. Sanju Singh and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
29.11.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 581/2017 under Sections
20/21/25/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Tilak Nagar. Since a
weapon was recovered from one co-accused chargesheet was filed under
Sections 20/21/25/61/85 read with Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
2. Charge has been framed against petitioner under Section 21(b) of the
NDPS Act.
3. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was
travelling from Sonepat to Delhi and had come to deliver Cocaine in his
vehicle - Swift Dzire. The contention is that during search of the petitioner
10 small packets were recovered. Each small packet contained white
powder. Powder of all the packets was mixed up and the total weight was
found to be 10 gm. After testing the powder, it was found to contain
cocaine.
4. Two sample each of 1 gm. were taken and sent for forensic
examination. The forensic report has been received which established that
the sample sent contained cocaine (6.7%).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated as requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act was not
complied with during search and seizure. Further, it is contended that from
the status report, it is apparent that there were 10 packets of 1 gm. each
which were allegedly recovered from the petitioner and the contents of all
the packets were mixed prior to testing. He submits that since the
percentage of cocaine found is 6.7%, it is not discernible as to whether each
of the packets contained some concentration of cocaine or only one packet
contained cocaine of a higher concentration which on mixing has reduced
the percentage to 6.7%.
6. Learned counsel submits that in case the quantity of cocaine
recovered from the possession of an accused is 2 gm or less then the
offence is punishable under Section 21(a) and the punishment could be
imprisonment of a term upto one year or fine which may extend to Rs.
10,000/- or both.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been in custody since 04.12.2017. He submits that since there a doubt as to
the quantity recovered from the petitioner and the purity of the seized
articles has been compromised and the quantity is suspect and there is
tampering with the packets allegedly recovered, the petitioner is clearly
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner has
made out a case for grant of regular bail.
9. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case.
Petitioner shall not do anything, which may either prejudice the trial or the
prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not leave the country without
permission of the Trial Court and shall also surrender his passport to the IO,
if any.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter. It would be open to the trial court to consider the same
in accordance with law and the evidence that comes on record.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2018/'rs'
