9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own -- one addressed to Rohit Yadev and the other to his driver, Anil Kumar. Moreover, the Applicant's act of concealing his identity while going to collect the parcels, by covering his face, inquiring about the parcels beforehand, and attempting to flee on sensing the presence of the CBI team, indicates that he was aware of the illicit nature of the parcels. In the case of MOHAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN [2015 (4) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court has clarified that conscious possession does not require physical custody alone but also an awareness of the presence of the contraband and control over it. In this case, the Applicant's actions and admissions establish a strong prima facie case of knowledge and intent, sufficient to satisfy the threshold of conscious possession under the Act. On a prima facie assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the Applicant has not met the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail. The allegations against him are grave and serious in nature and there is prima facie credible evidence which links him to a larger conspiracy. Thus, the Court does not deem it fit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious colours, which, when tested using an NDPS Detection Kit, tested positive for MDMA. Consequently, on 06th July, 2023, 2 CBI cases bearing RC 2202023E0016 and RC 2202023E0017 were registered in CBI EO-II, New Delhi under Section 8 read with Sections 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act, against the persons named as 'receivers' on the parcels, as well as unknown others - i.e., Rohit Yadev and unknown others and Anil Kumar and unknown others. 2.3 The FIR which forms the subject matter of the present application, i.e., RC 2202023E0016, pertains to a parcel containing 1880 grams of MDMA; while FIR bearing No. RC 2202023E0017, relates to a parcel containing 1852 grams of MDMA. 2.4 Subsequently, CBI formulated a plan to apprehend the suspects in the case. In order to secure the original psychotropic substance and to avoid any untoward incident during the controlled delivery process, two dummy parcels were prepared, in lieu of the 2 original parcels seized. The dummy parcels were forwarded through the Foreign Post Office to the designated addresses in order to lead the receiver to believe that they were the original parcels containing psychotropic substances, thereby enabling the arrest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant disclosed in his statement dated 13th July, 2023, that he acted under the instructions of his brother-in-law, Vinod Jaiswal, who allegedly directed him to collect the parcel containing psychotropic substances. Both Vinod Jaiswal and Anil Kumar are absconding and Non-Bailable Warrants have been issued against them. 2.9 Pertinently, during the investigation, CBI visited the address provided on the parcel listed under the name of 'Rohit Yadev'. Upon inquiry, Rohit Yadev categorically denied any connection with the parcel and stated that he had no knowledge of such a delivery. Further investigation into his involvement revealed no evidence linking him to the parcel containing psychotropic substances, apart from the use of his name on the shipment. 2.10 As for the parcel booked under the name of Anil Kumar, the CBI found that the address mentioned was incomplete, making it impossible to attempt delivery at the specified location. 2.11 The ongoing investigation into the larger international drug-trafficking cartel is at an advanced stage and remains critical. Chargesheets have been filed against the Applicant in both the present FIR as well as FIR No. RC 2202023E0017. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ug trafficking network. The Applicant was neither the sender not recipient of the parcel and his name is not mentioned in any of the documents relating to the couriers in which the parcel was sent. Moreover, there are no CDR calls or Bank transactions either between the consignee of the parcels and the Applicant, or between any customers and the Applicant. The sole piece of evidence against the Applicant is his purported disclosure statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, such a statement is inadmissible as evidence in light of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Therefore, Counsel for the Applicant urges that since a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the Applicant was taken into custody on 13th July, 2023, and a chargesheet against him has also been filed, no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody any longer. The Applicant does not have any previous criminal antecedents and has deep roots in society, thus, there is no possibility of him absconding from the process of the law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP for CBI strongly opposes the present application, arguing that the Applicant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Applicant went to the Post Office in person, enquired about the parcels and attempted to collect them. Despite not being the consignee, he attempted to claim parcels under names that were not his own -- one addressed to Rohit Yadev and the other to his driver, Anil Kumar. Moreover, the Applicant's act of concealing his identity while going to collect the parcels, by covering his face, inquiring about the parcels beforehand, and attempting to flee on sensing the presence of the CBI team, indicates that he was aware of the illicit nature of the parcels. The argument that he was merely acting at the behest of his brother-in-law, who is evidently not a 'consignee', is also not credible at this stage. Even assuming this assertion to be true, the Applicant's active participation in collecting the parcels, coupled with his actions at the Post Office, suggests he was consciously facilitating the receipt of the parcels. This is sufficient to establish prima facie conscious possession under the NDPS Act. In this regard, in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222, the Supreme Court has clarified that conscious possession does not require physical custody alone but als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
