Delhi High Court
Arpan Alias Babloo vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 March, 2025
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered on 25.03.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024
ARPAN ALIAS BABLOO .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Janak Raj
Ambavat, Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr.
Anmol Sachdeva and Mr. Kushal
Kumar, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI
Vishan Kumar ANTF, Crime Branch
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 read with
Section 528 BNSS seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 120/2021
under Sections 20/25/29 NPDS Act registered at PS Crime Branch, North
West, Delhi.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2022 a secret information
was received by SI Vishan Kumar that one person namely, Arpan @ Babloo
(petitioner herein) alongwith his associate Suman, who are dealing in the
supply of heroin, would be coming from Sultanpuri to Mangolpuri Flyover
near Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi to supply contraband to unknown
persons and if a raid is conducted, they both can be apprehended alongwith
high quantity of heroin.
3. Accordingly, police constituted a raiding party and went to the
informed place. There the raiding party saw petitioner/ Arpan @ Babloo
alongwith co-accused Suman on a motorcycle. They had stopped the
motorcycle near Mangolpuri Flyover where they were waiting for someone.
The police overpowered both, the petitioner, as well as, Suman and took them
into custody.
4. Upon search of petitioner, 300 gms of heroin was recovered from the
left side pocket of his jeans. Likewise, from co-accused Suman, 200 gms of
heroin was recovered from her pink coloured purse.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Suman
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed in
BAIL APPLN. 3271/2024. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since
01.07.2022 and till date only 02 witnesses have been examined and 18
witnesses are yet to be examined.
6. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and his
overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He further submits that the petitioner was
granted interim bail on number of occasions and the same was never misused
by him. He, therefore, urges that the petitioner be released on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has
argued on the lines of the status report. He submits that the quantity recovered
from the petitioner is commercial. Besides that, 200 gms of heroin was
recovered from co-accused Suman who was accompanying the petitioner
when they were apprehended, therefore, the total recovery is 500 gms. He,
therefore, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to bail since the rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 are applicable.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned
APP for the State.
9. The recovery made from the present petitioner is although of
commercial quantity but it is not in controversy that the petitioner is not
involved in any other similar case. Further, the custody period of the
petitioner till date is more than two years as borne out from the nominal roll.
10. A perusal of the status report also shows that the prosecution has cited
as many as 20 witnesses, of which only two (02) have been examined till date,
therefore, the trial is likely to take a long time. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi
Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109. The relevant paras
of which reads thus:
"4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has
been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So
far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not
guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has
already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The
prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty
must override the statutory embargo created under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Likewise, in Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to
the accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered,
having regard to his custody of 01 year and 11 months, the fact that the
accused had no criminal antecedents and that the conclusion of trial would
take time. The relevant paras of the decision reads as under:
"8. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that the
appellant has, as on date, spent more than 01 year and 11
months in custody. The investigation is complete but
framing of the charges is yet to be done. The conclusion of
trial will thus take time. There are no criminal antecedents.
9. It is a seriously debatable question of fact whether the
appellant was also found in the conscious possession of the
contraband (smack). But such a question of fact will
obviously be determined by the Trial Court at an appropriate
stage. That being so, it seems to us that as of now, the twin
test of Section 37 of the Act, need not be invoked against the
appellant.
10. Taking into consideration the totality of the
circumstances, especially the period of custody undergone
by the appellant however, without expressing any views on
the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly,
the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Although, Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 has been invoked in the
present case, but the co-accused Suman, who was accompanying the
petitioner on the same motorcycle when they were both apprehended and
from whom the recovery of intermediate quantity was also made, has already
been granted bail.
13. In view the above decisions and having regard to the circumstances in
the entirety, especially the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, his
clean antecedents and the fact that the trial is still at the initial stage, the
conclusion of which would take time, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/JMFC/Duty JM, further subject
to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not leave NCR without prior permission of the
concerned Court.
(ii) The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating
Officer on which he will remain available during the pendency of the
trial.
(iii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the
applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned
Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with
any prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
(v) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court
during the pendency of the trial.
15. It is clarified that the observations made herein above are only for the
limited purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
16. The application is disposed of.
17. Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for necessary compliance.
18. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 25, 2025/N.S.ASWAL
