9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No.3003. Thus the allegations at best against the petitioner is that number of his Honda City Car was used for sending the parcels to the courier agency at Agra. In the absence of the statement of Danish, as per the complaint filed by the respondent who is not a witness and there is no evidence against the petitioner except the inadmissible statement of the petitioner himself that he delivered the parcels to Danish. Before the Court grants bail to an accused allegedly involved in an offence under the NDPS Act, the Court required to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not involve himself in an offence under the NDPS Act while on bail. The petitioner has been in custody since January, 2019 and considering the evidence against him, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner pending decision of the trial. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Further, subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 3. It is further contended that the prosecution has surreptitiously chosen to make Satpal who was working in Welcome Courier as a witness and not an accused even though the money was substantially paid by Satpal to coaccused Brij Bhushan Bansal and he was in contact with the said accused and both of them knew each other for the last 4-5 years. Further, even as per Satpal, the main accused Brij Bhushan Bansal indulged in similar transactions earlier also. There are material differences in the statements of the various accused and witnesses recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which go to the root of the matter. The petitioner has been in custody since 22nd January 2019 and the trial is likely to take some time. There is no recovery of contraband nor any money trail has been found from the present petitioner. The petitioner has a previous enmity with the respondent as he was falsely implicated earlier also and in one case, he has been acquitted and in another case, he is on bail. The petitioner is 75 years old and suffering from various life threatening diseases due to which, the petitioner was granted interim bail and he surrendered on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sychotropic substances. The role assigned to Mohan Kumar and Birpal who have been granted bail is not similar. Hence, no bail be granted to the petitioner. 6. Case of the respondent in the complaint in brief is that on 19th January 2019, a consignment was intercepted at Apex Courier, Mahipalpur, Delhi which contained 5000 tablets of Alprazolam and 50,000 tablets of Zolpidem. The said consignment had come from Agra to Delhi sent by one Satpal to Ajay at Mahipalpur, Delhi which was collected by Lallan, pick up boy of M/s. S.M.Courier Company. On the consignment being opened, it was found to be containing a transparent polythene bag addressed to WYNN Industries, USA. According to Lallan, he was sent to collect the parcel by Birpal. Statement of Birpal was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein, he disclosed that Ms. Sandhya Sharma and Mohan Kumar were the Directors of M/s. S.M.Courier and Cargo Private Limited (in short, SMC ) and they provided him two mobiles phone bearing Nos. 9599008336 and 9599351207 which he used for the purposes of collecting the rates and for delivery and collection of parcels. 7. Mohan Kumar was connected with Brij Bhushan Bansal and on a wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substances. Undoubtedly, no recovery has been made from the petitioner. While granting bail to Mohan Kumar, it was noted that though the case of the NCB was that alleged parcel was dispatched from Agra, however, the address of the courier company i.e. Apex Courier, Mahipalpur, Delhi clearly showed that the consignment note No. 20235315 was generated at Delhi and not at Agra. This Court has perused the copy of the consignment note No. 20235315 dated 18th January 2019 wherein, the place of origin has been noted as Agra and the destination at Delhi, the consigner is Satpal, Agra and the consignee is Ajay, Mahipalpur, Delhi. 13. The other evidence available with the prosecution against the petitioner is the statement of the witness Satpal, who stated that on 18th January 2019, he received a phone call from Dr. Brij Bhushan Bansal that he was sending two parcels to be sent from Apex Courier, Agra to Ajay, Mahipalpur, Delhi. Dr. Bansal stated that his person will come in a white Honda City Car No. 3003 with the parcels and the same be given in Apex Courier. Satyapal told him that these parcels be given to Apex Courier and he will tell Danish, who is working in Apex Courier. The parce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Dr.Brij Bhushan Bansal and petitioner were partners. Hence the contact between the main accused as established through the call detail records does not show the complicity of the petitioner in the present case. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent invokes Section 37 NDPS Act and contends that the petitioner was earlier also involved in an offence under the NDPS Act titled as NCB Vs. Deep Chand and Anr. , in complaint No. VIII/034/DZU/2018. In the said case wherein the petitioner is presently on bail, Dr.Bansal had sent the contraband through the same courier agency i.e. Apex Courier of Agra through Satpal, Danish and Om Prakash and the other persons involved in the chain were Deep Chand Kumar, Bobby, Tapish Kumar, Dheeraj Jain and Virender Singh. 16. Section 37 NDPS Act reads as under:- 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
