RAKESH KUMAR BHOLA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under sec. 439 read with Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( in short 'Cr.P.C.') filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail in connection with SC No. 7520/16 under Sec. 22/25/25A/29 of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, the applicant is in judicial custody since 23/8/2015 and there is no possibility of completion of trial in near future. Medical condition of the applicant is not good and this court vide order dtd. 12/4/2019 in bail application number 639/19 had noted that the applicant was advised Cholecystectomy and reassess for Hernia and he was advised to undergo surgery for squint correction and, therefore, interim bail of four weeks was granted. It is submitted that later on it transpired that the applicant was wrongly treated by the doctors in jail which resulted into symptoms of prostatitis. He started getting treatment for prostatitis, and as per the latest medical report, he was advised for regular Self Intermittent Catherization cleaning at least twice a week with aseptic precautions. He states that the said treatment is not possible in judicial custody. The applicant is the sole bread winner of the family and cannot be kept in incarceration for indefinite period. He also states that when the applicant was granted interim bail, there was no allegation of any misuse.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant placed reliance on decision of this court in the case of Atul Aggarwal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) SCC OnLine Del 5489, Mahesh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC OnLine Del 394, BAIL APPLN. 51/2022 dtd. 8/2/2022, and BAIL APPLN. 956/2022 dtd. 18/7/2022, Shravan Kumar @ Kishan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC OnLine Del. 2079 and other connected matters to state that, without assurance of speedy trial, personal liberty of an accused cannot be deprived of.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents prosecuting agency opposed the application and he submits that the applicant is accused in connection with serious offence. After completion of the investigation, the complaint was filed and the trial court had taken cognizance on 20/10/2015. The applicant was a party to the criminal conspiracy with accused no. 1. The present applicant is accused no. 2 in the complaint. The applicant was the person, second in command with regard to the activities of M/s Lakshaya Traders. The applicant was knowingly and consciously concerned with fraudulent diversion of 2348 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride from the premises of accused no. 6 through M/s Lakshaya Traders and further disposal of 1300 kg of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, which was diverted from the premises of accused no. 10 to M/s Weishorn Biotech, owned by accused no. 1.