9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the petitioner or not. But at this juncture one cannot say that the petitioner/accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established - In cases where narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society and in the instant case, the petitioner has already indulged in two other cases while on bail. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not been able to connect the tenanted premises with the petitioner or the panchnama are forged and fabricated, therefore the witnesses of the panchnama are not truthful, these are all matters to be looked into at the time of trial and this is not the stage to analyze the testimony of the witnesses in depth as desired by the counsel for the petitioner, otherwise the same would prejudice the case of either of the parties. There are no grounds for bail - bail application dismissed. - BAIL APPLN. 2549/2021 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Adv. with Mr. Abhimanyu Kampani, Mr. Swapnil Krishna and Mr. Mohit Joshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the car. A Notice Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served to both the accused persons. However, upon enquiry and search, nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused persons nor from the car. 5. During the course of enquiry, co-accused Surender Verma has disclosed that that he has a godown located at 35/5, G.T Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Phase-B, Near Telephone Exchange, Derawal, Model Town Gurudwara, Delhi, where he alongwith the petitioner was secretly keeping psychotropic substances received from the co-accused Rajesh Sharma and others. 6. It is further the case of the prosecution that vide authorization dated 23.05.2013, Sh. S K Nath, SIO DRI has authorized Sh. Devender Singh (IO) to search the premise of the petitioner i.e. BF-35, Shalimar Bagh (E), Delhi. In pursuance of the said authorization, Sh. Devender Singh called two witnesses namely Deepak Kumar and Amar Singh and searched the premise bearing No. BF-35, Shalimar Bagh. During the course of search of the said premises a number of incriminating documents were recovered and Indian currency amounting to ₹ 8,40,000/- was also recovered which were seized under the provisions of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the samples to CFSL, Hyderabad which was allowed on 29.10.2013 by Ld Trial Court. CFSL Hyderabad has submitted the report dated 21.11.2014, wherein it has been analysed that all 11 of the Exhibit out of 12 sent for analysis gave positive test for Methamphetamine . 11. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Sr. SPP for the respondent (DRI), perused the reply filed by the respondent-DRI and also perused the records of this case. 12. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody for the last more than 7 years and since then the prosecution has not been able to conclude the evidence. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused has already been granted bail and the petitioner is also entitled to parity. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that all the recovery memos are forged and fabricated and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the recovery witnesses. 13. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the alleged recovery was made from the house which was taken on rent by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SPP that the recovery was effected from the rented premises of the petitioner. He further submitted that the CFSL Hyderabad vide its report dated 21.11.14 had opined that the exhibits sent gave positive test for Methamphetamine . He further submitted that the amount of ₹ 8,40,000/- which was recovered is the sale proceeds of the drugs. 17. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. SPP that the recovery was made at the instance and in the presence of the petitioner as well as other co-accused and in the voluntary statement dated 25.05.2013, coaccused Rajesh Sharma stated that a cash of ₹ 3,50,000/- recovered from his residence has been received by him as advance part payment from Surender Verma @ Chotu, who is the carrier boy of the petitioner, in lieu of delivery of next consignment of 25 Kgs. of pseudoephedrine. 18. One of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that embargo of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable as the substance recovered is a controlled substance. In the instant case, there is a recovery of huge quantity of Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine weighing 54.740 kgs. and 3,4- Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-Porpanone weighing 136.840 kgs. which was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
