Blog

It has to be shown prima facie that the accused is not guilty of such offence and also that there is an embargo u/s 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail to the accused. The Court should have satisfaction with regard to likelihood of him not committing the offence under the Act or any offence whatsoever and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR in the case of KALE RAM @ KALU RAM vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [BAIL APPLN. 3045/2019] on 10.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that on secret information accused Raghav Sehajpal, Krishan Chand and Ram Lal were apprehended and from the possession of accused Raghav 220 gm of charas was recovered and two parcels containing 399 and 925 gm of charas were recovered from Kishan Chand and Ram Lal. Further it was alleged that accused persons in their statements admitted their involvement. The co-accused Raghav disclosed that he used to get the contraband through petitioner through conductors and drivers who sometimes used to give money in cash and sometimes used to deposit money in HDFC bank accounts. Therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail NDPS ACT.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody whereas, the co-accused – Raghav Sehajpal and Ram Lal are on regular bail. It was further submitted that the petitioner did not possess any contraband, and he is charged with conspiracy with co-accused. It was further submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in the society and has family to support. The counsel contended that as per the allegations in the complaint, the element of conspiracy with the other co-accused person is missing.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that that there is an entire chain including the drivers, and conductors involved in the trade. It was further submitted that the petitioner Kale Ram is the main accused who used to deal in the contraband through the other co-accused, and there is a recovery of commercial quantity of charas in this case. He further submitted that at this stage, the court is not supposed to prejudge the evidence and the petitioner is unable to show even prima facie that he is not guilty.

According to the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody, the Court granted bail to the accused petitioner. The Court observed that, “the petitioner has to show prima facie that he is not guilty of such offence and also that there is an embargo u/s 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail to the petitioner. The Court should have satisfaction with regard to likelihood of him not committing the offence under the Act or any offence whatsoever.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman