MAHESH Vs. STATE (NCT DELHI) & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks regular bail in SC/254/2017, under Sections 21(B) & 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth referred to as the "NDPS Act") on the ground of parity with co-accused Vijay Pal, who has been granted bail vide order of 14th March, 2018 (Annexure-2). On the basis of secret information, a parcel said to contain narcotic drug destined to Australia was intercepted and on its search, it was found that it contained 360 gms of methamphetamine. The said parcel was booked by the co-accused Vijay Pal, to whom notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued and his statement was recorded and thereafter, statements of Roshan Kumar Singh, Varun, Manzoor Ansari as well as of petitioner were also recorded by the Investigating Officer. On perusal of aforesaid statements, it transpires that the said parcel was given by one Frank to petitioner for packing and booking and for this purpose, Rs. 4,500/- were given to petitioner, who after packing the parcel had given Rs. 3,200/- to co-accused Manzoor Ali for booking it. The allegation against petitioner was that he had actively connived with co-accused and had abetted the offence in question.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had no knowledge about the contents of the parcel, as it is evident from the charge-sheet that the drug was tactfully concealed in water filter. It is further submitted that the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) has failed to explain non-inclusion of other co-accused in the chain of events and has deliberately avoided to get their CDR on record. It is thus submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated and the case of petitioner is on better footing than the case of co-accused Vijay Pal, who has already been granted bail by order of 14th March, 2018 (Annexure-2).

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent-NCB vehemently opposes this application by submitting that as per Section 35 of NDPS Act, there is presumption of culpable mental state and there are various call records to show connivance between petitioner and Frank and so, in view of bar of Section 35 of NDPS Act, this application deserves dismissal.