9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the presence of independent witnesses and was taken into safe custody and thereafter the consignor/accused Dipu Singh was apprehended from Lucknow and from his house, 12,000 Tablets of Tramadol (4.800 Kgs.) were recovered. 3. During investigation, accused Dipu Singh disclosed the names of other persons involved in the conspiracy including co-accused Tejas Patel, Sachin Makade, Barun Chauhan, Bablu Bhagwan Dangre. Further he disclosed name of Taha Toufiq (present petitioner), his mobile nos. 9889333201 & 7007832196, resident of 485/44, Rafik Enclave, Mohan Makin, Near Railway Bridge, Daliganj, Lucknow. 4. Consequent upon the recovery from the parcel and from the residence of accused Dipu Singh and also based on his voluntary statement tendered under section 67, NDPS Act, having reason to believe that accused Dipu Singh had admitted of committing an offence under section 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, and punishable under section 22, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act, he was arrested on 02-02-2020. In follow-up investigations, other accused persons namely, Tejas Patel, Sachin Makade, Barun Chauhan, Bablu Bhagwan Dangre had also tendered their voluntary statements respectively, and seizure of incrimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incriminating evidence against the petitioner is the mobile phone connection with co-accused Dipu Singh and the said mobile phone is not at all recovered from the present accused. 11. It is further submitted by him that the statement of the petitioner U/s 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in view of the decision in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. He further submitted that the signature of the petitioner has been obtained on blank papers and the same were later on converted into documents. He further submitted that the petitioner is in J.C. since 05.08.2020. 12. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the mobile phone No. 7007832196, which according to the NCB was being used by the petitioner from whom he used to chat with co-accused Dipu Singh is in the name of Sukh Anwar who is not traceable. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after the arrest of Dipu Singh was called number of times for inquiry but there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner/accused on record. He further submitted that as per the chats, the orders, according to the NCB were given by the petitioner but there is nothi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent) that the petitioner has not produced his mobile phone with an intention to conceal the evidence against him. He further submitted that on the basis of the statement, call details and WhatsApp conversations, the petitioner was arrested and was found to be in constant touch with coaccused Dipu Singh. 18. He further submitted that the mobile No. 7007832196 used by the petitioner was in constant touch with co-accused Dipu Singh and the said number was saved by co-accused Dipu Singh in his mobile as Taha Amity because the petitioner is a student of Amity University. He further submitted that the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that SIM was not in the name of the petitioner is of no-consequence as the chats between co-accused Dipu Singh and the petitioner were very frequent and the number was stored by co-accused Dipu Singh as Taha Amity. 19. He further submitted that IMEI number of the mobile set used for mobile connection No. 7007832196 was obtained from service provider and the mobile connection No. 7007832196 was being used in mobile set having IMEI No. 357328073033890 upto 04.02.2020 and on 04.02.2020 till 05.02.2020 the said SIM card was used in the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase is a case of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable. Section 37 of the NDPS Act regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act. Section 37 reads as follows: "(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) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] 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 any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations 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 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (emphasis suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty." (emphasis supplied) 27. Based on the above, the test which is required to be applied while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit an offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. 28. As far as the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner regarding the absence of recovery of contraband from the possession of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
