Delhi High Court
Md Muslim vs State on 29 August, 2019
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.08.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1662/2019
MD MUSLIM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Adv.
(DHCLSC) with Mr.MOhit Rastogi,
Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State.
SI Chandar Kumar ST ARS-I/Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present application, the applicant/accused seeks bail in SC
No.1324/2016 in pursuance to FIR No.148/2015 registered at Police Station,
Crime Branch, Saket Courts for the offences punishable under section
20/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. The facts of the case are that on 28.09.2015 at about 7:35 pm, under
Barapulla Flyover, Ring Road, New Delhi, Vehicle no. CG-10X-6620 was
intercepted by the police party. Accused Nitesh Ikka, Virender Kumar,
Sanjay Chuahan, and Sharif Khan were found sitting in the vehicle and 180
kg of ganja was recovered. On 03-04.10.2015, accused Nitesh Ikka was
taken to Chattisgarh. Accused Md Muslim (petitioner herein) was arrested
whose disclosure statement was recorded. Accused Virender @Vire was
arrested at the pointing out of the petitioner. Accused Virender @Vire's
disclosed the name of the accused Nepal Yadav. On 08.01.2016, accused
Nepal Yadav was arrested, but no contraband was recovered from his
possession. Original RC and insurance papers of the vehicle no. CG-10X-
6620 were recovered. The accused namely Nitesh Ikka, Virender Kumar,
Sanjay Chauhan, Sharif Khan and the petitioner disclosed that they had
brought the contraband for supplying to Virender @Vire. The disclosure
statement of Virender @Vire shows that he has kept the documents of the
vehicle in a flat whereas it has been allegedly shown to have recovered from
the accused Nepal Yadav.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of
the case while deciding the bail application filed by the petitioner. There is
no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. There is no recovery of
contraband from the possession of the petitioner. The co-accused Nepal
Yadav and Virender @Vire have already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 26.07.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. The petitioner has
been assigned similar role by the prosecution, as there is no recovery from
the possession of the petitioner, however, he was arrested on the disclosure
of accused Nitesh Ikka.
4. The petitioner has been arrested on 03-04.10.2015 from Chattisgarh
and since then he is in judicial custody.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is seeking bail on
parity with Nepal Yadav and Virender @ Vire.
6. He further submits that compliance of section 50 was not done by the
police, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
7. To strengthen his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand in Criminal
Appeal No.273/2007 decided on 27.04.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that compliance of section 50 is mandatory, however, in
the present case, section 50 has not been complied with.
8. The fact remains that the petitioner is a supplier and he received sale
consideration from the accused persons through his bank account.
9. In case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan (supra), recovery of 2.5 kgs. of
charas was from the person whereas in the present case, recovery is from the
vehicle, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that compliance of section
50 of NDPS Act is not required.
10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is supplier of ganja who
received sale money, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. The application is accordingly dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
AUGUST 29, 2019
ab
