RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. NCB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in the complaint filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau (in short 'NCB') being Crime No.VIII/07/DZU/2020 under Sections 8/21/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act').

(2.) When notice was issued in this petition on 12th April, 2021 learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that the prayer for interim bail is a typographical error and the petition be treated as one for regular bail for which notice was issued by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was only a driver of the vehicle and had no connection whatsoever with the transaction or with the person who was involved in the transaction. No recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was not involved in the offence is evident from the fact that the main accused tried to run away on apprehension but the petitioner did not try to run away. Petitioner has no criminal history and no previous conviction. The petitioner was not aware as to what was there in the packet and for what purpose the cash was being handed over. Even as per the case of the prosecution on the asking of the owner of the vehicle the petitioner gave the packet of cash which was lying in the car. Version of the so-called prosecution witnesses that the petitioner gave cash from his pocket is unbelievable. The rigours of Section 37 are not applicable as there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence. Statement of the public witness Deepak Duggal cannot be relied upon as the same was recorded on 15th June, 2020 though the alleged recovery was made on 29th January, 2020. Further no reliance can also be placed on the statement of this witness for the reason admittedly the apprehension took place after 10.30 PM on a winter night and from a distance the transaction would not be visible to the public witness due to the low visibility. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as Kassu Ram vs. State,; Mohd. Zuber vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln.3821/2006 decided on 30th October, 2006; Karan Singh vs. The State (NCT of Delhi);, 2006 130 DLT 114 Dilbagh Singh vs. D.R.I.;, Ravi Nadar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRC No.6299/2018 decided on 3rd October, 2018 to contend that the petitioner being a mere driver of the vehicle and no recovery having been made from him, he cannot be said to be allegedly involved in the offence of possession of the narcotic drug.