TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation that all the accused persons are part of a conspiracy and they are connected with each other in view of their respective statements as well as from the recoveries made by the NCB. It is evident that the NCB seized Narcotic Drugs/ Psychotropic substances from two different locations in Delhi from the possession of two persons. These seizures were made on the basis of disclosure statements of Gaurav Mehta and Bhaskar Khatnani which also prove that there was an organized network working behind the sales of Narcotic Drugs/Psychotropic substance, as the seizures of the NCB related to the present matter involves commercial quantity, which is covered under the Chapter V- A of NDPS Act 1985 - There is no doubt that the anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. However, when the element of criminality is involved; the custodial interrogation is required and/or the other aspects and facts are required to be unfolded in investigation, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. There are nothing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 435 tablets of white colour round shaped, marked Adderall, weighing 143 gms. [As per CRCL report, the sample was found positive for Tramadol]. (vi) one packet of 164 tablets, marked Hydro, weighing 75 gms. [As per CRCL report, the sample was positive for Tramadol] (vii) one packet of 192 tablets, suspected to be Hydrocodone, weighing 115 gms.[ [As per CRCL report, the sample was positive for Tramadol]. Hence the total weight of Tramadol recovered is more than 250 grams and the same is a commercial quantity. 3. Further, it is also learnt that Gaurav Mehta also sent narcotic psychotropic tablets from his office-cum-warehouse at K-121, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi continuously. Thereafter, the warehouse of accused Gaurav Mehta was searched and the following articles were recovered: (i) Vellum Tablets, weighing 1.36 kg. [As per CRCL report, the sample was positive for Tramadol]. (ii) Xanax, weighing 60 gms. [As per CRCL report, the sample was negative). (iii) Alprazolam, total 126 strips [As per CRCL report, the sample was found negative). (iv) Lorazepam Tablet IP Lori-2 mg, total 73 strips (One strip contain 10 tablets) [CRCL Report is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him and he would receive it at Gate No.2, Laxmi Nagar Metro Station. Bhaskar Khatnani further disclosed that the petitioner herein is an associate of Manish Mohan, who is involved in the medicine business and used to arrange medicines from Mumbai. 7. Thereafter, a search was conducted by NCB team near Gate No. 2, Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Delhi and following medicines containing Narcotic Psychotropic Substances were recovered: (i) V.C. Don Tablets, weighing 12kgs, total 2000 strips, 20,000 tablets (Hydrocodone) [As per CRCL report tested positive for Tramadol.] (ii) Ativan 2 mg Lorazepam, total 168 strips, 5040 tablets [As per CRCL report tested positive for Lorazepam. (iii) Phentermine K-25, total 1000 strips, 10,000 tablets [Test not available at CRCL.] (iv) Lypin-10 JDT-3423 Zolpidem Tartrate tablets I.P, weighing 600 grams, total 300 strips, 3000 tablets [As per CRCL report tested positive for Zolpidem.] Hence, the total weight of Tramadol recovered was more than 250 gms., which is a commercial quantity. 8. On the basis of recovery made at Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Manish Mohan was arrested. On the disclosure of Bhaskar Khatnani, co-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in force, on granting of bail. 15. 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. 16. 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 or not, it must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Amin v. CBI, (2008) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 37of the Act which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused involved in the offence under the Act. 20. 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 should know each other and also every detail of the plot, so long as they are co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also not necessary that all of them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being unity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused Pulkit Kumar to the tune of ₹ 69, 36,943/- between 11.09.2017 till 16.05.2018 impliedly, prima facie, shows that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid illegal trade and had full knowledge about the conspiracy in place. 26. During investigation, it was revealed that Amit Ranjan was a native of village - Parasi, near Chaturbhuj Asthan, Baghan Bigha, Nalanda, Bihar-803118. However, when summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was sent to his house, it was informed that he does not reside there and no further information about his whereabouts could be collected. Presently his whereabouts are unknown. 27. As stated above, NBWs were already issued against accused Amit Ranjan and he has not joined the investigation despite repeated notices. The investigations in the present matter are at an initial stage. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the NCB seized Narcotic Drugs/ Psychotropic substances from two different locations in Delhi from the possession of two persons. These seizures were made on the basis of disclosure statements of Gaurav Mehta and Bhaskar Khatnani which also prove that there was an organized network worki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 32. Now, reverting back to the facts of the case, I do not find anything on record, at this stage, to satisfy this Court that there are grounds, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
