Delhi High Court
Aamin vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 26 March, 2025
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.03.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 781/2025
AAMIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Prakash Upadhyay,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP with IO/SI
Dimpy Gulia
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Petitioner, a TSR driver suffering incarceration since 09.04.2024
seeks to be released on bail in case FIR No. 357/2024 of P.S. Narela
Industrial Area for offence under Section 20 NDPS Act. It is alleged that the
petitioner and his co-accused sitting as passenger in his TSR were found in
possession of a total of 21 kg ganja in two trolley bags. One trolley bag
containing 8.3 kg ganja was lying by the side of driver seat of the TSR
while the other trolley bag containing 12.7 kg ganja was lying by the side of
the passenger Ms. Khushbun Nesha. The accused persons were intercepted
on the basis of secret information. Further, it is the case of the prosecution
that originally one Radha also was sitting as a passenger in the TSR but she
deboarded prior to the spot where the TSR was apprehended. According to
BAIL APPLN. 781/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
prosecution, the seized contraband was to be supplied to the kingpin Md.
Mojjam, who also has been arrested.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the prosecution story is
not convincing at all since there is no reason for the passenger and the driver
of the TSR to keep one trolley bag by the side of the passenger and the other
trolley bag by the side of the TSR driver. It is explained by learned counsel
for petitioner that if the TSR driver and the passenger were together in
action, both trolleys would have been kept by the side of passenger in order
to ensure convenient driving of TSR. And if they were not acting together,
why would they travel in the same TSR and in any case, then the quantity of
the allegedly recovered ganja from the petitioner would be only 8.3 kg,
which is not a commercial quantity.
3. Learned APP files status report which is accepted across the board to
be scanned and made part of the record. It is submitted by learned APP that
the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.
4. Further, learned APP has produced before me CDRs and it is alleged
on instructions of the IO/SI Dimpy Gulia that the CDRs reflect constant
telephonic communication between the petitioner and the kingpin Md.
Mojjam. The said CDRs reflect exchange of calls between two phone
numbers, out of which one number is admittedly of the petitioner and the
other number is alleged to be of kingpin Md. Mojjam. The IO was directed
to show the ownership document of the other phone number. After spending
some time on his investigation file, the IO stated that the other number
belongs to Md. Rustom, who is brother of kingpin Md. Mojjam. However,
BAIL APPLN. 781/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
there is no evidence on investigation file to show that phone of Md. Rustom
was being used by kingpin Md. Mojjam. Even statement of Md. Rustom was
not taken by the IO.
5. Thence, prima facie as on date there is no evidence to show that the
present petitioner was involved in any conspiracy and at the most, the
material is to the effect that he was found carrying a trolley bag containing
8.3 kg ganja, which is not a commercial quantity.
6. Considering the above circumstances, the bail application is allowed
and petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. A copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 26, 2025/rk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
BAIL APPLN. 781/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
