TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PLN. No.1541/2019 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2020 - MS. ANU MALHOTRA J. Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aadarsh Priyadarshi, Mr. Saurabh Verma, Dr. Shelly Sharma, Adocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akshay Saxena, Advocate. ANU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The applicant Paramjit Singh Gulati in custody since 20.07.2012 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 29, 28 r/w Sections 23 29 and Section 22 r/w Section 29 25A r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 with which he has been charged on 05.11.2014 seeks the grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The applicant is alleged to have been in criminal conspiracy with other persons named Atul Aggarwal, Vicky, Paramjit Singh @ Chotu, Pahalwan, Gaurav Ahlawat @ Rakoo and Gaurav Sharma (who have since not been arrested) to deal and possess and export various narcotics and psychotropic or controlled substances illegally out of India and in furtherance thereof allegedly attempted to export or transship out of India a consignment having concealed therein 151.98 kgs of Ketamine, a psychotropic substance included in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above three cartons, were found to be having the marking of Neha Rachni Mehandi. 4. The investigation had led the DRI team to the applicant/accused Paramjit Singh Gulati and Atul Agarwal (accused no. 2), as it was found that the above export consignment was being exported by the above applicant/accused, as per the shipping documents seized in this case, and accused Atul Aggarwal was acting as his agent in the export of the above consignment. The DRI officers had conducted simultaneous searches at various premises of both the accused and from the residential premises at G-48, Man Sarovar Garden, New Delhi of applicant/accused also, they had recovered two different pouches Marked as EPH and PSE weighing 25.5 Grams (gross weight) and 24.5 Grams (gross weight) respectively containing some white colour crystalline powder, a cash amount of ₹ 1,57,30,000/- (one crore fifty seven lacs and thirty thousand), 13 mobile phones of various brands and some documents. Two godowns of the applicant/accused situated at G-41 (Basement), Bali Nagar, New Delhi and at Khasra No. 755/2/1 at Mundka Village, Delhi were also raided and from the first godown also 215 Grams of white colour crys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had earlier exported about 1000 KG of contraband substances out of India. As per the above statements, all the above previous consignments were sent by the applicant/accused and the accused Atul Aggarwal was. given the task of packing and concealment etc. of the above drugs in the said consignments and for this job he was being paid by the applicant/accused @ 2.5/3 lacs for each consignment of about 100 KG. In pursuance of the disclosures made by them m their above statements and in the light of the information conveyed to the Canadian Authorities by the DRI officers from Delhi, a consignment of 300 KG of Ketamine concealed in a consignment declared to be of Chaat Masala was also intercepted at the premises of an airport at Canada by the Canadian Authorities. 8. The allegations in the complaint and the documents filed alongwith the same prima facie show that the above Ketamine Hydrochloride weighing 151.980 Kg was being attempted to be exported or being transshipped out of India by the accused Paramjeet Singh Gulati and Atul Aggarwal, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. The subsequent recovery of 200 Kg of Ketamine Hydrochloride in dissolved form from the second godow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Indian Authorities were supplied to the DRI. 4. In the follow up action which was pursuant to the seizure of the contraband at the IGI Airport which was attempted to be exported on 18.07.2012 to Malaysia in the name of M/s Sagar Impex, the DRI Officials recovered and seized 25.5 gms of Ephedrine Hydrochloride and 24.5 gms of Psedoephedrine Hydrochloride, amounting to ₹ 1,57,30,000/- and 13 mobile phones of different brands and loose documents/ hand written papers and one spiral notebook from the premises at G-48, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi and also recovered 215 gms of a white coloured crystalline powder and cash amounting to ₹ 3,50,000/- from the godwon G-41 (basement), Bali Nagar, New Delhi apart from recovering Ketamine dissolved in different solutions of rose water and liquid glucose and drums of refined glycerine ethyl acetate from the premises at Khasra No.755/2/1, Village Mundka, Delhi. 5. The petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner relate to his alleged statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 before the officials of the DRI on 19.07.2012 which he submits has already been retracted by him on the first opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that whereas as per the first complaint, recovery was allegedly made from a godown in the Village Mundka, Delhi, the DRI had wrongly alleged that the said godown belonged to the present petitioner namely Paramjit Singh Gulati but actually the said premises were owned by Paramjit Singh s/o Sh. Gurjit Singh and the DRI has mistakenly taken the accused to be the owner of the said godown. The applicant has further submitted that though, as per the complaint filed by the DRI there was a suggestion that there were other persons involved, they had not been identified even after 7 years of the filing of the complaint which thus, led to the conclusion that the DRI had not fairly investigated the case. The applicant thus, submits that he has been undergoing serious medical problems, there is no probability of his getting involved in any unlawful and unwanted activity and he has been incarcerated ever since the date of his arrest and thus, be released on bail. 10. Inter alia the applicant submits that there is nothing on the judicial record to connect the petitioner to the allegations levelled against him and there is no document placed on record by the DRI, the respondent to even remotely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was wrongly suspected to be Ketamine, test sample demonstrated that it was Ephedrine Hydrochloride (Page 33, 37, 50 of the petition)which is a controlled substance and very small recovery even if assumed without admitting that it was recovered from the applicant, does not attract the bar of section 37 of NDPS. (See Niranjan Jayantilal Shah v. DRI 2013 SCC Online Delhi 4608) Godown situated at Khasra number 755/2/1, Mundka Vilage, Delhi. 200 Kgs Ketamine dissolved in solution of rose water, liquid glucose, etc.. (i) During the search at Bali Nagar property, a rent agreement for Mundka property was allegedly found. The rent agreement was between Neetu Vats d/o Anoop Singh with one Paramjit Singh s/o Gurjeet Singh (Chotu)r/o House No. 4/3 Shivalik Apartments, Jallandhar, Punjab whereas the Applicant is Paramjit Singh, son of Late Gurbaksh Singh, a resident of Delhi. (See Page 199 of the Petition r/w 333 of Additional Documents). (ii) Applicant though in custody of DRI was not taken to Mundka only coaccused Atul Aggarwal was taken (Page 72 of Additional Documents). This was pleaded in Bail at Page 79. (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.07.2012 at 3.00 PM and that the intelligence indicated that the residential premises of the petitioner and three addresses pertained to the respondent no.2. The respondent has further submitted that when the searches were conducted at seven premises on 19.07.2012, when the officers on the basis of the search warrant went to the premises of M/s Sagar Impex, they found that there was no firm by the name of M/s Sagar Impex and that the second floor was nonexistent and that the investigation revealed that the petitioner was the king pin of the present case and that through his voluntary statement dated 20.07.2012, the petitioner had admitted inter alia that goods seized at the Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi were sent by him and the print outs of emails of his email ID shown to the petitioner pertained to export consignments through which drugs and psychotropic substances were exported/ attempted to be exported and that the said email had been sent by the petitioner herein to the accused Atul Aggarwal and that the petitioner had been unable to explain as to why details of invoices/ packing list of export consignments and the money transfer were present in his mail, if he had nothing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n instructions of Shri Paramjit Singh Gulati and forged the various documents of M/s Sagar Impex to book the consignment through M/s Galleon Logistics by using their IEC and that on 28.07.2012, Mr. Arunesh Pagore also accepted that on the request of Parvez Ansari, he had been allowed to use his IEC to export the consignment of M/s Sagar Impex. 19. The respondent has denied that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has rather submitted that the petitioner was the king pin as per the investigation conducted and that he had been involved in the smuggling of the drugs since a long time and was also involved in the procurement of drugs and its supply thereof by concealing in rose water and other solutions to avoid detection by Government Agencies and was the master mind also in forging of documents of export and that 25.5 gms and 24.5 gms of Ketamine were recovered from his residential premises at G-48, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi with cash of ₹ 1.57 Crores, 13 mobile phones with 215 gms of Ketamine powder was recovered from his godown at G-41 (Basement), Bali Nagar, New Delhi along with cash of ₹ 3.5 Lakhs and around 200 kgs of Ketamine dissolved in solution o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the statements that have been recorded of Sh. Arunesh Pagore and Parvez Ansari only indicate the involvement of the co-accused Atul Agarwal and do not incriminate the present petitioner who has been made a scapegoat. 23. Reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the statement of Sh. Parvez Ansari dated 28.07.2012 made by the DRI vide which he inter alia stated to the effect:- On being asked I state that I have filed S/Bill no 9880760 dated 17.01.2000 of M/s Sagar Impex 2533 -18 Second Floor Gali Laltanwali Naya Bazar, New Delhi-110006. Declare to export of Mehandi, Vanity Box, Bangles etc. To consignee M/s Khairol Nizam, Hasim No. 3-5-6, Flat Medan, Tengku Jelutong11600 Geogeoton, Penang, Malaysia by Singapore Air License on 19.07.2012. I came to know that above said shipment was intercepted by DRI officers and some contraband drugs concealed in the said shipment have been seized. On being asked I state that the said consignment was send tome by one Mr. Atul Kumar Aggarwal alongwith the documents related to the said export consignment that is in voice packaging list and fumigation certificate which I here produced before you duly signed by me. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly distinguishable . 26. It is essential to observe that in Bail Appl. No.2149/2013 in Atul Aggarwal Vs. DRI , a verdict of this Court dated 30.06.2015 in relation to the co-accused in the instant case itself, the bail application of that co-accused has been rejected. 27. As regards the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had retracted from the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 04.12.2017, it is essential to observe that vide the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CRL.A. No.1897/2019 in Sujit Tiwari Vs. State of Gujarat Anr. dated 28.01.2020 vide paragraph 9 has observed to the effect:- 9. We have gone through the statement made by the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Without going into thequestion whether the statement is admissible or not, as this matter has been referred to a larger bench, we are, for thepurpose of this case, taking the statement into consideration even though the appellant has resiled from the same. , in as much as, the aspect of the admissibility of the statement in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been referred to a larger bench of the Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh s/o Sh. Gurjit Singh, the person named Chhotu who was alleged to be an employee of the petitioner, presently does not aid the petitioner, in as much as, the documents in the email in relation to the shipment effected in the name of M/s Sagar Impex, a fictitious sum are from the email ID of the petitioner and apart from the same, the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 made by the petitioner is self inculpatory and presently has to be accepted to be correct. 29. In the circumstances, in as much as, the recovery of Ketamine is of a commercial quantity allegedly attempted to be exported by the petitioner in association of the co-accused persons with also commercial quantity of Ketamine dissolved in solutions of rose water and liquid glucose having been allegedly recovered from the premises i.e. godown at Khasra No.755/2/1, Village Mundka, New Delhi which was testified by the landlord to have been rented out to the petitioner herein, presently, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is not guilty of the commission of any offence punishable under the NDPS Act, 1985 in relation to which the charges had been framed against him vide order dated 05.11.2014 with additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
