Delhi High Court
Narotam Pradhan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 January, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2292/2018
NAROTAM PRADHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Kundan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with
ASI Abdul Barkat, Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
18.01.2019
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 140/2018 under
Sections 20, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station
Crime Branch.
2. Allegations in the FIR are that secret information was received
that one person would be bringing a truck load of ganja for supply in
Delhi. A raiding party was prepared. At the designated spot, one truck
was found. When the truck was intercepted by the raiding party, 175
Kgs of ganja was found.
3. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that petitioner had
facilitated the transaction between the supplier and the buyer. As per
the prosecution the co accused has disclosed that the petitioner had
facilitated the transaction and that the amount for purchase of the
ganja was deposited in the account in the name of one Prasanna
Kumar Behera. The account details were allegedly provided by the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the mere
disclosure statement of the co accused and the alleged confessional
statement of the petitioner, there is no evidence to connect the
petitioner with the subject offence.
5. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not been able
to establish any connection between the petitioner and the subject
account in which the money was deposited. He further submits that no
connection has been found between the petitioner and the other co
accused. The prosecution has not been able to establish any telephonic
conversation between the petitioner and the other co accused.
6. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
2018 8 SC 271 to contend that mere confessional statement or a
disclosure statement cannot be taken as a substantive piece of
evidence.
7. Fresh status report has been filed. Same is taken on record.
8. The Status report filed by the prosecution on record ascribing a
role to the petitioner is based on the alleged disclosure statement of
the co accused and disclosure statement of the petitioner. Apart from
the confessional and disclosure statement, there is no material to
connect the petitioner with the account in which the money has been
deposited or with the subject offence.
9. The Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna (Supra) has
held that a confessional statement of a co accused cannot by itself be
taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co accused
and can at best be used or utilized to lend assurance to the Court and
in the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate
to base the conviction solely on the statement of a co accused.
10. The Court has to first examine the material collected by the
prosecution to form an opinion and as to whether there is any
incriminating material against the petitioner or not. Only once the
Court, based on independent material, is of the view that material
collected is incriminating and establishes the role of the accused, the
Court can then look at the confessional statement to lend assurance to
the Court that the opinion formed is correct.
11. Admittedly no recovery has been made from the petitioner.
Further even as per the prosecution the confessional/disclosure
statement of either the petitioner or the co accused has not led to the
recovery of any incriminating material. Accordingly, at the present
stage there are missing links between the petitioner and the
commission of the subject offence.
12. Petitioner has been in custody since 08.08.2018 and
investigation is complete and chargesheet has already been filed.
13. I am prima facie of the view that petitioner satisfies the
exceptions carved out by Section 37 of the NDPS Act and there are
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the
subject offence. Further it is not the case of the prosecution that any
material has been found to show that petitioner is earlier involved in
any such activity or is shown to be involved in any case of similar
nature. Accordingly, it cannot be held that there is likelihood of the
petitioner committing any offence while on bail.
14. In view of the above and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied
that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
15. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- 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 do anything which may prejudice
either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not leave
the country without the permission of the Trial Court
16. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
17. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 18, 2019
rk
