GULBABU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.197/2020 under Sections 21/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act') registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the prosecution case the petitioner was apprehended at 8.10 PM on 17th December, 2020 however, he was arrested only at 11.45 AM on 18th December, 2020 when the arrest memo was prepared. Thus the petitioner was kept in illegal custody all this time and documents created. Despite the fact there was no information given to the family by mobile phone or even through a messenger, the arrest memo notes the thumb mark of the wife of the petitioner in Column No.10. No DD entry has been recorded to show how the signatures of the wife of the petitioner had been obtained on the arrest memo. Though the apprehension is at 8.10 PM on 17th December, 2020, the FIR was lodged only at 6.36 AM on 18th December, 2020 with the alleged contraband being in possession of the raiding team all this time. Further the case of the investigating agency is that the petitioner reached the Court at 2.00 PM when the thumb marks of the wife of the petitioner were taken on the arrest memo however, the arrest memo had been prepared at 11.45 AM and thus admittedly, at that time no intimation was sent to the family of the petitioner thereby violating the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1997 SC 610 D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal. This is despite the fact that the petitioner's residence is at Suiwalan, Turkman Gate, Delhi which is close to office of the Crime Branch at Darya Ganj where the petitioner was kept the whole night as per the prosecution Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Search of the co-accused has been taken by a lady constable Janita Meena who was not authorised to take the search. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions reported as 1989 (1) Crimes 314 State vs. Jagmala Ram; 1994 Crl.J. 3702 State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh; 1995 Crl.J. 875 Chhotu vs. State of Maharashtra; 1995 (97) Bom LR 398 Dilkush G. Sinal vs. State of Goa; 1995 Crl.J. 2300 State vs. Shakeel Ahmad; 2001 Crl.J. 165 Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala and 2002 Crl.J 2013 Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the site plan was prepared when SI Arvind along with the Investigating Officer went to the spot. The allegations that the petitioner was picked up from the house and falsely implicated are baseless. The CDR of the petitioner shows his connection with the co-accused. Search of the co-accused was taken by the woman constable in the presence of the ACP and SI Arvind who constituted the raiding team. Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act stand complied with and hence no case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.