TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, so at this stage, it would not be proper to consider the alleged recovery to be an individual recovery as both of them were travelling in the same vehicle. Co-accused is a habitual offender and he knows the trick of the trade and the factum of conspiracy can only be looked into at the time when the evidence is led. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the alleged recovered quantity from both the accused being more than 1 Kg., rigors of Section 37 applies. Bail application dismissed. - BAIL APPLN. 3901/2020 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner: Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate Respondent: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with SI Deepak Pandey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secution, the conspiracy to bring the contraband in Delhi NCR for selling was established and subsequently Section 29 NDPS Act was added. As per the case of the prosecution on further interrogation of the petitioner and his co-accused they disclosed that they used to bring the contraband by hiding in vegetables, which they carry in their vehicle. 4. The state has filed the status report. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld APP for the State and perused the status report filed by the state. 5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 19 years old and 555 Gms. of Charas which is less than the commercial quantity is alleged to have been recovered, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that GD entry No. 0011A was recorded on the basis of the secret information which is due compliance of Section 42 of the Act. 7. Ld. APP for the State has relied upon Deonandan Roy Vs. State [2016 SCC OnLine Cal 2463] Dipak Kr. Roy @ Dipak Roy Vs. State [2016 SCC OnLine Cal. 2464], Abu Basar Baidya vs. State [2016 SCC OnLine Cal 7333], Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad Vs. Director of Enforcement [AIR 1987 SC 1364], Bhupindeer Singh @ Bhinda Vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 1 RCR (Criminal) 168 (FB)] Madan Lal and another Vs. State of HP [(2003) 7 SCC 465] to bring home the point that the recovery from each of the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case is not to be treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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. XXX XXX XXX The provisions for grant of bail to drug traffickers had been deliberately made more stringent as their activities undermine the basic fibre of the society. 11. In the instant case, GD entry No. 0011A was recorded on the basis of the secret information received. So, at the stage of bail factual matrix of the case cannot be looked into and the same would be seen during the course of trial. 12. The petitioner was arrested alongwith his co-accused, who is involved in two other cases of NDP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
