9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled that both the said parcels were booked by the accused ('petitioner' herein) with his own ld. at the instance of the co-accused, Lokesh Chadha. It is further alleged by the prosecution that recovery of the said narcotic substances falls within the category of commercial quantity. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is in custody since 17-2-2016 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The respondent has already filed the status report/reply to the bail application, wherein it is stated that during the investigation, it was revealed that both the parcels were booked by the petitioner with his own ld. It is further stated in the status report that the petitioner had tendered his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he disclosed that, on the instruction of the co-accused, Lokesh Chadha, he received the parcels in question from one foreigner. He also disclosed that the said foreigner customer provided one vague Id. The petitioner further disclosed that the contents of the parcels have been checked-up by the co-accused Lokesh Chadha and ultimately, on instructions of Lokesh Chadha, both the parcels were boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfied that the embargo of section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable. At this stage, there is no material to suggest that accused will not indulge in such activities again in case he is released on bail. The application under consideration stands dismissed. Order dasti, as requested." 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Surbir Singh v. Customs (Preventive), 2018 VIII AD (Delhi) 670 and submitted that the facts of the case in Surbir Singh (supra) are identical to the case of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid judgment, may be granted regular bail. However, the judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. There is no dispute that in this matter, the quantity involved is a commercial one and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable. Section 37 of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy." 14. Further, in Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 429, the Supreme Court observed as under : "8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit while on bail, are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in the dangerous drugs, the Court should implement the law in the spirit with which the Parliament, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an offence and that he is not likely to commit the same again while on bail. 18. Now reverting back to the facts of the case, it has come on record that the petitioner had sent parcels on three occasions. From the perusal of the statement of the petitioner, it is revealed that he used to book the parcels pertaining to foreign nationals on his identity documents. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also demonstrates that before booking of the parcels, the petitioner had the knowledge about the contents of the parcels, which means that the petitioner had knowingly and intentionally booked the parcels with the knowledge that the same were concealing recovered drugs. The petitioner had full conscious knowledge about the contraband while taking the contraband into his possession for consignment. 19. A bare perusal of the alleged statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also demonstrates that, when the customer had brought the packets, he paid towards the packets a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner and told him that Lokesh Chadha had asked him to do so. Thereafter, Lokesh Chadha came in the evening and the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
