2021 (6) TMI 35 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - case of petitioner is that prayer for interim bail is a typographical error and the petition be treated as one for regular bail for which notice was issued by this Court - Smuggling - dealing in Contraband or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, accepting the statement of the public witness and the witnesses of NCB the petitioner only gave money from his pocket. The petitioner neither received the contraband nor was the contraband handed over to him. On the contraband being handed over to the co-accused Sukhwinder Singh he directed the petitioner to pay the money which he paid. At no point of time was the petitioner in the conscious possession of the contraband. Even as regards the charge of conspiracy the prosecution is required to show that the petitioner had knowledge that the money was being handed over for the purpose of purchasing the contraband. Further it is not even the case of the prosecution that the money belonged to the petitioner and the case of the prosecution is also that the petitioner was merely the driver of the car owned by Sukhwinder Singh. Considering the role assigned to the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no previous involvements and the trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Regular bail application under Sections 8/21/29 NDPS Act - Petitioner's involvement in drug trafficking - Co-conspirator or mere driver - Prosecution's case against the petitioner - Evidence and arguments presented - Decision on granting bail.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case filed by the NCB under Sections 8/21/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, a driver, claimed no involvement in the transaction or knowledge of the contents of a packet handed over during a raid. The petitioner's lack of criminal history and absence of recovery from him were highlighted. The defense argued against the applicability of Section 37 and questioned the reliability of witness statements. Citing precedents, the defense contended that being a mere driver without recovery, the petitioner couldn't be implicated in drug possession.

The prosecution opposed bail, alleging the petitioner's active participation as a co-conspirator based on witness statements. The case involved a raid following secret information about a drug transaction. The petitioner, along with other accused, was apprehended, and recoveries were made from them. The prosecution argued that the petitioner's presence and actions indicated knowledge and involvement in the drug purchase, emphasizing the need to examine material witnesses before granting bail.

The court noted the ownership of the car and initial possession of the contraband by others, not the petitioner. Drawing parallels with a previous case, the court emphasized that merely driving the vehicle did not establish conscious possession of the contraband. The court concluded that the petitioner's role was limited to handing over money, not receiving the contraband, and lacked knowledge of the transaction's purpose. Considering the petitioner's custody duration, lack of prior involvement, and the trial's expected duration, the court granted bail with specific conditions.

In the final order, the court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon fulfilling specified bond requirements and conditions, including restrictions on leaving the country and updating contact details. The petition was disposed of, and the order was to be uploaded on the court's website for public access.