9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different stages. As per the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory that before the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit the same again while on bail. There is nothing on record to satisfy this Court that there are grounds or more to say reasonable grounds believing that the petitioner is not likely to commit such an offence again and is also not likely to commit the same while on bail, hence, this Court does not find any merit in the bail application of the petitioner and the same is, accordingly, dismissed - petition dismissed. - Bail Appln. 202 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2019 - Chander Shekhar, J. Shri S.C. Sagar, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Yatharth Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This order shall dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parcels with the knowledge that the same were containing the recovered drugs. Further, from the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner as well as the co-accused Lokesh Chadha are knowingly involved in the present case. 6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. This Court, vide order dated 24-7-2017, had dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of co-accused Lokesh Chadha observing as under : It appears that attempts are made to export the narcotic drugs out of India by the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Anuj Gosain. Admittedly, it is a case of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted which creates an embargo on the power of the Court to grant bail. At present there is no material on the record to suggest that in case the co-accused is released on bail, he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. 8. In the order dated 14-12-2018, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, it was held by the Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as the Trial Court ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. 11. In Saju v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) SCC 378, the Supreme Court observed as under : 8. ...It is a settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against other. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is only then that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. 12. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, it was ruled in the same vein that while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-judged by the Learned Single Judge at the stage of consideration for bail. The minimum which Learned Single Judge should have taken into account was the factual presumption in law position that official acts have been regularly performed. Such presumption can be rebutted only during evidence and not merely saying that no document has been produced before the Learned Single Judge during bail stage regarding the compliance of the formalities mentioned in those two sections. 7. We may also observe that Learned Single Judge has not recorded a finding in terms of Section 37 of the Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused involved in the offence under the Act. 16. It is also a fact noticed by the Courts that, generally, the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The acts of various parties to the conspiracy will infer that they were done with reference to common intention, hence, it is held, time and again, that the conspiracy can be proved by indirect circumstantial evidence, which is of an impeccable nature. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing on the record which proves that the petitioner, at any point of time, told the consignor/customer what would be the amount for the consignment of these packets. It impliedly shows that when the petitioner received the packets, he had full knowledge about the contents of the packets and was also having knowledge that he has to receive a sum of ₹ 10,000/-, hence, the petitioner was instrumental and part of the conspiracy in transportation and receiving of the contraband and all the accused persons acted hand-in-glove with each other. 21. Further, taking into consideration the material on record and the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner and the other accused have already allegedly admitted their complicity and involvement in the commission of the offence. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conduct of the petitioner and the fact on record that the petitioner had earlier sent parcels on three occasions and taking into consideration the detailed order of the Trial Court as well as the status report, this Court is satisfied that at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
