The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Leela Dhar @ Leelu vs The State consisting of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted that merely because there was no recovery of contraband from the possession of the petitioner, it cannot be assumed at the stage of bail that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence, if there is other incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence.
Facts
These applications u/s 439 CrPC were preferred on behalf of petitioners in a FIR u/s 20/29/25 of the NDPS Act. Based on a secret information that that a person namely Chirag Jain procures narcotic substance i.e., charas in bulk from Kasol, Himachal Pradesh and supplies to local drug peddlers in Delhi, a raiding party was constituted and the three accused were apprehended and further investigation was carried out.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that no recovery was effected from the possession of accused and recovery is alleged only from Chirag Jain. It was also contended that ‘conscious possession’ by the petitioner cannot be presumed since the alleged recovery was from co-accused. It was further contended that the disclosure statement of the co-accused was a weak piece of evidence.
Respondent: It was contended that even in the absence of direct recovery, there were other incriminating evidence connecting them with the offence.
Observations of the Court
Relying on a plethora of judgments, the Bench noted that there must be reasonable grounds for pinning down the accused and merely telephonic conversation would be insufficient to hold that the petitioner is guilty or stands linked with the offence. It was also noted that circumstantial evidence based solely on disclosure statement of co-accused without any corroboration is per se inadmissible.
It opined that merely because there is no recovery from the possession of the concerned petitioner, it cannot be assumed at the stage of bail that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence, if there is other incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence.
In the present case, the recovery of charas from the possession of Chirag Jain was after the same was immediately delivered by the petitioner Shivanshu Jain. This reflected that the possession was with Shivanshu Jain and Mukesh Ran prior to delivery and it cannot be assumed at this stage that the contents of polythene were not known. The transfer of money by Chirag Jain, Shashi Jain (mother of Chirag Jain) and Rishabh Jain (cousin of Chirag Jain) in the account of Leela Dhar @ Leelu as well as transfer of money in the account of one Bhupinder Singh at the behest of Leela Dhar @ Leelu from Chirag Jain, Rishabh Jain and Shivanshu Jain reflected that was a close nexus. Additionally, the recovery of car belonging to Chirag Jain, from front of the house of Leela Dhar @ Leelu, which was alleged to have been retained for settlement of dues linked the cartel.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that no grounds for bail were made out in the light of twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applications were accordingly dismissed.
Case: Leela Dhar @ Leelu vs The State
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 4088/2021
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Decided on: 16th August 2022
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments