SURESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of the present petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in the case for an offence under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"), primarily on the ground that no recovery has been effected from him.

(2.) LEARNED senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that 6 kilograms, 200 grams of heroin was recovered and seized by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the "DRI"), from the exclusive possession of accused No. 1 (Danon Armand Erick @ Peter). It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the petitioner has not been named as an associate/accomplice in the commission of the offence and no case is made out against him. He also submits that the statement made by the petitioner herein on 25.9.2008 was not voluntary and was retracted on 5.2.2009. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.9.2008.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father was working in the Ministry of Agriculture and he retired in September, 1988; his mother is a house -wife; and his wife Suman Sharma expired in the year 2002 and besides that he also had a son and a married daughter. It is stated that the petitioner had joined as an apprentice in the National Fertilizers Limited, Delhi in October, 1979 and later on he took VRS in the year 2001 from the National Fertilizers Limited. He had thereafter started his own business in the name and style of M/s. Suman Business Centre, providing service for typing/STD/PCO/FAX etc. In the year 2003 he had started courier service as well. In his statement he has stated that he was booking the consignment of iron gears for accused No. 1 - Mr. Peter from time to time. As for booking an international parcel, commercial invoices were required, hence at the request of accused No. 1 - Peter he generated two commercial invoices. In his statement he further stated that invoices were generated on his computer as he was to be provided some extra charges. No doubt the petitioner has in his statement stated that he was aware that the consignment contained concealed drugs and he was informed that narcotic drugs will be concealed in the iron gears, however on 5.2.2009, the petitioner retracted from his statement.