Delhi High Court
Dalip Singh @ Langda vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 14 January, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1312/2018
DALIP SINGH @ LANGDA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Akshay Kumar Verma and
Mr. Rattan Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 108/2015 under
Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Crime Branch.
2. The case of the prosecution is that source information was
received on 21.07.2015 that one Parvez, a resident of Bihar along with
one Manoj bring Ganja in a truck and sell the same to several people.
It was informed that Parvez would be bringing Ganja and would be
supplying the same to one Javed.
3. Based on the source information, a raiding party was prepared,
raid was conducted. At the designated spot, two persons were found
standing near a Maruti Swift Car and some bags were being loaded in
the Swift Car. The informer pointed out to the two persons and
identified them as Parvez and Javed. They were apprehended. Five
bags containing 20 Kg. each of Ganja were recovered.
4. Parvez is alleged to have made a disclosure stating that his
source was one Manoj. Manoj has neither been identified nor
apprehended till date. Javed is alleged to have made a disclosure
statement that he was collecting Ganja for supplying to the petitioner
Dalip Singh @ Langda.
5. As per the prosecution, Investigation of the call detail record
shows call connection between petitioner and the co-accused Javed.
Investigation also revealed that the petitioner has been depositing
money in two accounts; one with ICICI Bank and other with IDBI
Bank. Based on this, chargesheet has been filed and petitioner was
apprehended and is in custody since 11.08.2015 and has remained in
custody since then apart from being released on bail on some
occasions on medical grounds. Presently, petitioner is on interim bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the alleged
disclosure statement, there is no evidence or material to connect the
petitioner to the subject offence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
evidence being relied upon is the alleged disclosure statement of co-
accused, call connection between the petitioner and Javed who was
apprehended from the spot and the allegations that he has been
depositing money in two accounts.
8. Learned counsel submits that merely because petitioner had
telephonic conversation with the accused, is not sufficient to connect
the petitioner with the subject offence. Further he submits that the
prosecution has failed to connect either of the two accounts with the
subject offence or any of the other accused.
9. Learned counsel submits that as per the investigation, the
account with ICICI Bank is in the name of one Ratnakar Rout and the
account with IDBI Bank belongs to one Raju Kumar and prosecution
has filed to connect Ratnakar Raut or Raju Kumar to the subject
offence. Further he submits that the prosecution has filed to establish
that the petitioner has been depositing money in ICICI Bank.
10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is HIV Positive and
his medical condition is not well. Further he submits that the
petitioner has been in custody for over three years without any
material coming against the petitioner.
11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there are two
major missing links in the case of the prosecution. There is no link
established by the prosecution between the petitioner with the alleged
supplier Manoj. Further the entire case of the prosecution, in so far as
petitioner is concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely on disclosure
statement of a co-accused which is per se not admissible without there
being any corroboration. Prosecution has not been able to establish
any connection between the subject offence and the bank accounts,
where the petitioner is alleged to have been depositing money or with
the holders of those accounts. Merely because the petitioner has been
having telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would not be
sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the subject offence. There
is no recovery made from the petitioner.
12. I am of the view that requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the said
offence.
13. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has been
involved in any case of similar nature. Reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Brahmajeet Singh
Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 wherein while
referring to an identically worded provision under
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999, the Supreme
Court held that the satisfaction is with regard to likelihood of not
committing the offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever.
14. Perusal of the record produced by Learned APP shows that out
of the 14 cases that are alleged to be pending against the petitioner,
petitioner has already been acquitted in six cases and the other cases
are under the Excise Act and the petitioner has not been charged with
any offence under the NDPS Act.
15. Further, keeping in view the present medial condition of the
petitioner that he is HIV Positive, there is no likelihood of the
petitioner committing any offence of similar nature.
16. Further, it may be seen that petitioner on account of his medical
condition has been on interim bail since 25.09.2018 and there is no
allegation of the prosecution that petitioner has indulged in any other
offence of similar nature during this period.
17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I
am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular
bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the 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 leave the country without the
permission of the trial court.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
19. It is clarified that the finding returned by this Court herein
above are prima facie and are only for the purpose of consideration of
the application for bail and the trial court is free to decide the case
based on the evidence that comes on record without being influenced
by anything stated in this order.
20. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
JANUARY 14, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
