When prima facie case is not brought against the complainant the petitioner without any question deserves bail

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 2nd April 2020

Mohan Kumar vs. Narcotic Control Bureau.

Facts:

Around 2.30 PM when the NCB team reached the office of Apex Courier Delhi. The manager of the courier office after questioned by the NCB team manager replied them about the medicines from Agra which included Alprazolam and Zolpidem and it was addressed to Mr.Ajay Mahipal, Delhi. The courier was received by manager at the office and it was collected by Lalla sent by Birpal and the investigating agency ceased the parcel from Lallan.In further action the agency detained the petitioner for further investigation and subsequently he was arrested. On the ground of the medical condition of his wife who met with an accident and due to the old age of his parents bail was granted.

Petitioner’s Submission:

• The petitioner cannot be said to be in deliberate possession of the contraband, as there was no retrieval at the petitioner’s instance and the investigative agency could not assert any clear case against the petitioner.
• The prosecution has fabricated the case In this case, Dr. Brij Bhushan Bansal (co-accused) allegedly sent a package through a courier carrying the psychotropic drugs ALPRAZOLAM (5000) and ZOLPIDEM (50000) booked by the doctor from Agra via Gaurav Mehndiratta, co-accused and Satpal, consignor in the name of consignee Ajay Mahipal, Delhi. The parcel sent from Agra with the name of the consignor as Satpal and the name of the consignor as Ajay Mahipal, Delhi, had the address of delivery of Apex Courier.
• In all of the raids / search listed , no recovery, no money trail and no incriminating evidence has been recovered from the office of the complainant or his home, which has been accepted by the prosecutors. Alleged seizures were rendered at Apex Courier, Delhi, and the NCB acknowledges that the complainant was not present at Apex Courier, Delhi, i.e. the location of the alleged raid and seize.
• The petitioner is an ex-Army Officer who, having served for 181⁄2 years in Indian Army and discharged from Indian Army, joined SM Courier just two months prior to his implication in this case. As an Indian Army officer, a petitioner received the Certificate of Commendation for his contribution to Indian Army from the Chief Integrated Defense Staff. He does not have any criminal background, however, indictment of mischievous motives and sinister motives has branded the complainant Kingpin for performing the above-mentioned crime, given the reality that he has not been arrested and that no money trail has been detected surrounding him and petitioner has never misused or violated his interim bail and diligently obeyed the orders of court of law.

Respondents Submission:

• There is every possibility and probability that a petitioner may carry out the same kind of practices which are detrimental to the welfare of society as a whole unless and until a petitioner meets the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the plaintiff has given no reason to conclude that he was not guilty of such a crime and is unlikely to commit any crimes on bail and, as such, the appeal is liable to be denied.
• The industrial quantity of psychotropic substance is seized and one individual, named Lallan, pick up the boy from M / S S.M. Courier was sent by the accused Birpal to retrieve the package, and the same  was sent to the U.S.A. During the inquiry, it was discovered that Birpal was suspected of conspiring with other accused persons, including the complainant, of dealing of psychiatric substances. Pick-up boy Lallan from the Apex Courier Director received the package containing psychotropic substance.
• The petitioner is directly involved in the criminal conspiracy and abetting of the execution of the crime of this case, so that the petitioner was also in positive and aware possession of the confiscated contraband referred to above. Co-accused Bansal in his statement that the case under the NDPS Act had been registered against him and that case was still pending before the Trial Court and that he was on bail in that case.
•  He met the petitioner about three years ago in Agra and further claimed that he had met him again about three months ago and told him that he would supply some packets and send the same to him through a courier, and that he would send the packets that he also received a amount of Rs.2 Lac through Hawala in Agra from Delhi.

Decision:

The court stated “There is no recovery from the complainant for either material or money trail. The applicant had withdrawn from the Indian Army just three months before the alleged incident. The above-named doctor seems to have transferred the blame of the offense to the complainant because of the motives best known to him. In the light of the above, the Court finds that the prima facie case is not brought against the complainant. However, because the present order is issued in the form of a bail appeal, thus, without dwelling on the merits of the case, the applicant deserves bail, who is in custody”.