Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application 1A No. 02/2025
SC No. 543/2025
State versus Paula Menezes De Belchoir
First Information Report No. 264/2024
Police Station Crime Branch
Under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act
07.08.2025
Pr : Sh. Ramesh Bajiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Harikesh Anirudhan, Ld. counsel for applicant/ accused Paula Menezes
De Belchoir.
Vide this order, I shall decide the second bail application filed under Section
483 BNSS filed on behalf of the accused/applicant Paula Menezes De Belchoir,
seeking regular bail.
Submissions of the Learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as contents of
his bail application
It is stated in the application that chargesheet in present case has now been
filed and accused as such is no more required for further custodial interrogation.
It is also stated that admittedly no recovery has been effected from possession of
present applicant/accused. The investigation of the present case has been
concluded. It is further stated that the applicant/accused has clean antecedents and
she has never been found involved in any such offence or say any type of criminal
case. It is further stated that the applicant/accused works as a real estate agent in
Goa and having deep roots in society, and is a single mother of two minor
daughters aged 5 and 8 years, both of whom are completely dependent upon her.
Her ailing mother aged about 77 years suffering from various serious ailments
needs her physical presence to look after her. The mother of the applicant/accused
who is also a heart and respiratory patient, is also solely dependent upon the
applicant. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has placed reliance upon the
judgments titled as Kamini Arya v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2002) SCC OnLine Del
2367 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana, 2024
SCC OnLine P & H 11669 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana,
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) SCC 40 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Page no. 1
-- 1 of 8 --
and Data Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22. All these
judgments have been perused very carefully vis-a-vis the facts of the case.
Submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by the Investigating Officer
Investigating Officer in his reply stated that on 18/12/24, a secret
information received by Sub Inspector Avdhesh Dixit. The informer reported that
an individual named Gopal Chauhan resident of Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who is
involved in the purchase and sale of Charas, would arrive between 07:15 AM to
08:15 AM at the bus parking next to Akshardham-Noida Road near the Crown
Plaza, Mayur Vihar, Delhi to supply Charas in a Maruti S-PRESSO vehicle bearing
registration no. HP 34E 7407. It is further stated that he might be caught red-
handedly exchanging the Charas, if raid is conducted on time. Relevant formalities
were completed regarding procedure of seizure of the psychotropic substances. The
search and seizure process was recorded using the E-Sakshya App. A
rukka was
prepared and sent to Duty officer Police Station Crime Branch through Head
Constable Devender for registration of case. All sealed pulandas and copy of
seizure memo were also sent through Head Constable Devennder to hand over the
same to Station House Officer Police Station Crime Branch in compliance of
U/S-55 NDPS Act Proceeding. Accordingly, a case FIR No. 264/24 dt. 18.12.2024
u/s 20/25 NDPS Act was registered at Polilce Station Crime Branch. It is further
stated that during the course of investigation on 21.12.24, accused JOO @ Zelemes
was apprehended at Opposite Side of Municipal Corporation of Delhi School
towards Majnu Ka Tila Gurudwara to Kashmere Gate. It is further stated that he
disclosed that he procured the contraband from one person namely Hira & Teja
from Himachal Pradesh and the same was delivered to his friend Paula & Jordan
Goa. It is further stated that as the accused Gopal Chauhan procured the recovered
contraband/Charas from the accused person Zelmes Savio Fernandes and other.
Gopal Chauhan was found to be in contact with accused Paula, Jordan & Zelmes
Savio Fernandes and accused Gopal Chauhan and Zelmes Savio Fernandes
identified Jordan & Paula as receivers.
Page no. 2
-- 2 of 8 --
It is further stated that during the later course of investigation on 12.04.25,
accused Paula Menezes De Belchior D/o Leticia De Belchior r/o Flat No. F-3,
Lemon View Apartment, North Goa, Age- 39 Years was arrested after due
interrogation. It is further stated that the Call Detail Records of mobile numbers of
arrested accused persons were sought and analyzed as per which Applicant/accused
Paula was found in touch with the co-accused namely Gopal Chauhan and accused
Gopal Chauhan was found in possession of the recovered contraband which was
transported in his car to deliver upon the receivers. It is further stated that accused
Paula Menezes De Belchior had found tampered with the evidence as she had
uninstalled the facebook account.
Learned Addl. PP for the State has also opposed the bail application,
submitting that the offence is of a serious and grave nature involving recovery of
commercial quantity (3.683 kgs Charas) from co-accused Gopal Chauhan. It is
argued that during investigation, financial transactions, call details records and
whatsapp chats have revealed that the applicant was in contact with co-accused
persons. The prosecution also apprehends that she may abscond and will not join
trial of the case. Ld. Addl. PP also submitted that there are enough evidence
against the accused and she may try to tamper with the evidence available.
Page no. 3
-- 3 of 8 --
Analysis and Reasoning
Undoubtedly, the court has to keep in mind nature of occurrences, nature of
evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment with conviction will entail,
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved.
It is also a settled law that this court at the stage of granting bail to the applicant is
only to look into the (i) nature and gravity of the offences/charges coupled with the
severity of punishment in case of conviction; and (ii) if there is any chances of the
accused absconding once out of bail; and (iii) if there is a reasonable apprehension
of the accused influencing the witnesses or tampering the records when released on
bail; and (iv) the past conduct and previous record of the accused as he should
neither be a threat to the society of which he is going to be a part of once again nor
there should be any change of his repeating the same or indulging in any other
offence; and (v) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence; and (vi) behaviour, means, position
and standing of the accued in the society. Further, the purpose of pre-trial custody
is neither punitive nor preventive. Hon’ble Superior Courts time and again
highlighted the general rule, that bail is the rule and jail is the exception meaning
thereby liberty of the individual is always the rule and deprivation is the exception.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment tilted as
Sanjay Chandra vs.
CBI, (2012) 1
SCC 40,
Manish Sisodia vs.
Enforcement Directorate (2024) 12 SCC 660,
Satender Kumar Antil vs.
CBI decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.07.2022
Deepak Yadav v.
State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559 passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi and
Arun Mathu vs.
Directorate of Enforcement decided by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court on 20.02.2025. To start with, it needs to be pinpointed that specific
grounds of arrest have found not been enumerated/mentioned/explained to the
accused. Once a person is accused for the commission of an offence under NDPS
Act, the right of liberty and freedom of the accused are eclipsed by the twin
conditions mentioned under section 37 NDPS Act. Thus, it is mandatory for the
investigating agency to show fairness in the process by strictly adhering to the
statutory mandate of the act to enable the court to presume existence of prima facie
Page no. 4
-- 4 of 8 --
case against accused. The fairness and efficiency not only protect the liberty and
freedom of the accused, but it also protects, the interest of the state. The moment,
the procedure adopted by the State smacks of any unfairness or deviation from the
procedure mandated by the Act, the eclipse of stringent bail conditions imposed by
section 37 NDPS Act are lifted and the liberty of the accused triumphs. Reliance is
placed upon the Bail application No. 73/2025 titled as
Gagan vs.
State (NCT of
Delhi) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 28.02.2025,
Pankaj Bansal vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576 and
Prabir Pukayastha vs.
State (NCT of
Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254,
Pranav Kuckreja v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 9549 and
Marfing Tamang v.
State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 548.
Further, in bail application no. 302/2020 titled as Sanjay Negi Vs. State,
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied upon on Union of India Vs. Rattan Malik
(2009) 2 SCC 624, in which it was held that
: 13. It is plain from a bare reading of
the non-obstante clause in the Section and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to
grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is
not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the
other twin conditions viz: (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii)
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is
manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on
"reasonable grounds". The expression 'reasonable grounds' has not been defined in
the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes
substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to
existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Vide Union of
Page no. 5
-- 5 of 8 --
India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari2] Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects,
noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act
14. We may, however, hasten to add that while considering an application for bail
with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to
record a finding of not guilty. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to
weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not
the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is
whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an
offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the Court about the
existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the
question of releasing the accused on bail"
Again, it is an admitted position that neither any recovery of contraband has
been effected from the present applicant/accused nor anything has been recovered
at his instance from any other person. Also, she is stated to be the recipient as
clarified by the Investigating Officer during the course of oral submissions as well
as in his written reply. Investigating Officer has himself stated that
applicant/accused has cooperated in joining the investigation, she had herself
joined the same at the appointed time and place. Further, the case of the prosecution
is primarily based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused persons and call
details records which allegedly show telephonic contacts between the accused
persons. It is to be pinpointed here that the disclosure statement of a co-accused
persons by itself, is not substantive piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis
for conviction or continued incarceration, unless duly corroborated by the other
material evidence. Also, confessional statement of accused cannot by itself be
taken as substantive piece of evidence. Reliance is placed upon
Surinder Kumar
Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 8 SCC
271,
Amit Ranjan v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2022 SC Online Del 1532 and
Phundreimayum Yas Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC online Del 135. It
needs to be pinpointed that with respect to the connectivity between the accused
Page no. 6
-- 6 of 8 --
persons and present applicant/accused through the mobile phone any alleged
transcript is subject matter to trial. With respect to the deposition of money by the
present applicant/accused admittedly, it seems more to be a small amount.
Reliance is placed on
Shyam Gupta & Ors. vs. State, Crl. Rev. P.421/2019,
Tofan
Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1],
Ravindra Dwivedi v. State of NCT
of Delhi (Bail Appl. No. 2279/2022),
Vinay Dua vs.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bail Appl. No. 982/2025 & CRL. M.A. 7469 dated 11.06.2025 by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi,
Dalip Singh vs.
State (NCT of Delhi): 2019 SCC OnLine Del
6494. The seriousness of the offence and the nature of allegations certainly merit
caution. However, it is settled law that pre-trial incarceration cannot be extended
indefinitely, especially when investigation stands concluded and trial is likely to
take time. The applicant/accused has no prior criminal record. Investigation qua
the applicant/accused has already been completed and chargesheet has been filed.
The sight of the fact that the applicant is a woman with dependent minor children
and an ailing mother, should also not to be lost sight of. Therefore, in the overall
circumstances and in view of above detailed discussion, there are reasonable
grounds to believe that accused is not guilty of offence and not likely to commit
offence again. Thus, keeping in mind the principles of criminal jurisprudence, this
court is of the opinion that the the applicant/ accused Paula Menezes De Belchoir
be admitted to bail subject to her furnishing a personal bond and surety bond in the
sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the applicant/accused will not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever.
2) That the applicant/accused will not leave the country without prior
permission of the court and shall appear before the court as and when directed.
3) That the applicant/accused shall keep the court/IO informed about her latest
address, in case there is any change and also provide her mobile number which
must be switched at on all time.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed off.
Page no. 7
-- 7 of 8 --
Copy of this order be given dasti to the ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused. Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned
for compliance.
(Manu Vedwan)
ASJ-02/Special Judge (NDPS)
East/KKD/Delhi/07.08.2025
Page no. 8
-- 8 of 8 --