Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16209
Decided on: 29.04.2021
Present:
Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana, assisted by Sub Inspector Satish Kumar.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22-C, 27-A, 29, 61 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Detention for almost three months – Name of petitioner was involved only from the disclosure statement of another co-accused, from whom no direct recovery was effected – Opposed by contending that Call Details collected to show that they were in contact with each other shortly before the seizure of the contraband – Held, this is not a sufficient ground to detain the petitioner at this stage for an indefinite period -- No direct recovery was effected from his own possession, as also he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Regular bail allowed.
(Para 1-6)
***
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) –
This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.297 dated 25.10.2020, under Sections 22-C, 27-A, 29 and 61 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad.
2. The petitioner has remained in detention for almost three months, since 03.02.2021.
3. Admittedly, no direct recovery was effected from the petitioner. His name has transpired only from the disclosure statement of another co-accused Pawan, from whom again no direct recovery was effected.
4. The petitioner's prayer for regular bail has been nevertheless opposed on behalf of the State by contending that they have been able to collect Call Details, pertaining to the conversations between the petitioner and the said co-accused, to show that they were in contact with each other shortly before the seizure of the contraband from the other co-accused persons.
5. In the opinion of this Court, this is not a sufficient ground to detain the petitioner at this stage for an indefinite period, since no direct recovery was effected from his own possession, as also he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
6. In view thereof, without commenting any further on the merits of the present case as a whole, but in view of the detention undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that the trial is likely to take its own considerable time to complete due to ongoing covid-19 pandemic, as such, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. Disposed off.
Petition allowed.
********