VIKASH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.37/2016 registered under Sections 489B/489C/120B IPC and Sections 15(a) (iii a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967, at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the prosecution, in support of its case, has relied on the CDR details between Baljinder Singh, Manga Singh and Vishnu. It is also submitted that the prosecution has only relied upon the CDR details and there is no conversation which has been recorded to prove the conspiracy between the petitioner and the coaccused. It is further submitted that the only material against the present petitioner is the recovery of FICN of Rs.2 lakhs from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed, no case of 'circulation' is made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the prosecution case it has been alleged that the petitioner came to receive the consignment on behalf of Baljinder Singh. However, neither Baljinder nor Manga Singh have been made accused but were later cited as witnesses. It is further stated that the intercepted calls between Manga Singh, Baljinder Singh and Vishnu do not mention the name of the present petitioner. It was further argued that the location of the mobile of the petitioner did not match with the place of the arrest and has referred the statement of PW-7 in this regard. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision Syed Abbas Mehdi vs. State, 2005 82 DRJ 570, Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh,2001 9 SCC 643, Kanchan Mishra @ Anu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 130 DRJ 646 and State of Kerala vs. Raneef, 2011 1 SCC 784.