DILBAGH SINGH Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an unfortunate victim of false implication in the said case and their exists no legal evidence of his involvement in drugs or having any sort of complicity in committing the said offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was merely driving his car make Tata Indica bearing registration No. DL -4CU -3270 and had only provided services to the co -accused Mr. Williams otherwise he is no where connected with the said co -accused nor is having any kind of relationship with him except that of his being a passenger in his car. Counsel further avers that there is no recovery of any contraband drug from the petitioner and even as per the case of the prosecution, the contraband drug was handed over to the Nigerian passenger, namely, William by co -accused Rohit Goel who was traveling in the other car i.e. Opel Corsa bearing registration No. NB -08 -AN -6133. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is already in judicial custody since 10.9.2007 and no purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. In support of his argument counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order of this court dated 11.8.2008 passed by HMJ Anil Kumar in Crl. B. A. No. 461/2008 and another decision reported in 2007 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 105 Ramesh Kumar v. Narcotics Control Bureau. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this court to the prosecution version to support his argument that the petitioner was merely driving his Tata Indica No. DL -4CU -3270 and when the same was intercepted by the DRI Officials, the other co -accused persons were seen transferring the drugs from their car to the Nigerian passenger sitting in his car. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner kept sitting in his seat and did not raise any hue and cry nor he was aware of the fact that the contraband items were being transferred to the said Nigerian passenger. Based on the said submissions, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deserves grant of regular bail.

(3.) BASED on the said legal submissions counsel contends that the petitioner who was driving the vehicle which was not a public vehicle was well aware of this fact that he was to carry some contraband article and at the time of delivery of the articles he was found in possession of the same and therefore as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act there are no sufficient grounds to grant bail to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent laid much emphasis on the judgment of Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2003 (6) SCALE (Supra) which was also the case of a driver and the Apex Court held as under :