Interim Order 61

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 24
IA/38/2023
SC 38/2023
PS Crime Branch, Delhi
FIR NO. 174/2022
STATE V/S RAJ KISHORE
21.04.2026
This is the 4th application under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular
bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Raj Kishore.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Ankit Rai, Counsel for the applicant/accused.
1. Present bail application is filed by the applicant in the
instant FIR No.174/2022 PS Crime Branch, under Section 15/25/29
NDPS Act.
2. Reply to the instant bail application has been filed by the
State/IO. Same be taken on record. Copy supplied to the Ld. Counsel for
the applicant/accused.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
3. It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he is the
sole bread earner in his family, having clean antecedent, falsely
implicated in this case and he was arrested 17.08.2022 and since then, he
is behind bars. It is further argued that investigation is complete as charge
sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and matter is at the stage
of PE. It is further submitted that there are total 26 prosecution witnesses
out of them, 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further
argued that applicant has already undergone judicial custody for three
years and eight months. It is further submitted that Police has failed to
-- 1 of 4 --
established any CDR connectivity between the applicant/accused and co-
accused. It is further submitted that the limited role of the applicant is that
he was the owner of the vehicle, which was rented out by him to co-
accused Rajesh Rajput and due to the said mistake, he was dragged in the
present FIR. It is further argued that the concession of bail should be
granted to the applicant on the ground of parity as one of the co-accused
namely Sanjay has been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. It is further argued that conclusion of trial will take
significant time, therefore, it is prayed that accused/applicant should be
released on bail as he is ready to abide with any condition imposed by the
court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
4. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by the
IO SI Sanjay Rana has vehemently opposed the bail application stating
that the allegations levelled against the applicant/accused are serious in
nature as there is a recovery of contraband of commercial quantity i.e.
154.6 kg Poppy Straw (Doda/Bukhi), hence, bar of Section 37 of NDPS
Act is attracted in this case. It is further submitted that all the compliance
provided under NDPS Act has been done by the Police Officials. During
interrogation, applicant/accused Raj Kishore disclosed that he had
brought the recovered the contraband from one Sanjay and thereafter
accused Sanjay was arrested at their instance with recovery of 8 plastic
bags (Mark B1 – B10) containing Poppy Straw (Doda/Bukhi) bags (197
K). Applicant and co-accused Rajesh Rajput further disclosed that they
used to work for one person namely Nirpal, who used to give directions
from his Mobile Phone with No.8847565452 and the CDR of Nirpal was
-- 2 of 4 --
analyzed and it was found that co-accused Sanjay had received call from
Nirpal’s Mobile Number. It is further submitted that the present
application cannot be considered on the ground of parity as the role of the
co-accused namely Sanjay is different from the role of the
applicant/accused. It is further submitted that the bail was granted to the
co-accused on the ground of delay in trial. It is also submitted that
recovered contraband is commercial in nature, therefore, bail should not
be given to the applicant/accused.
5. Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the judgment/orders relied upon by Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
6. The allegations levelled against the applicant/accused are
serious in nature as commercial quantity of contraband is recovered in the
present FIR is involved. Bar of Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted in
this case and there is no arguments made to pass twin test laid down under
Section 37 of NDPS Act. As far as the role of the co-accused, who has
been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India appears to be
different from the role of the applicant/accused. The argument of the
applicant’s counsel that applicant/accused is only the owner of the
vehicle, which was rented out by him is also devoid of any merit or logic
as he has admitted the fact that the said vehicle was not for the commercial
purposes as it has a private registration. There is every likelihood of his
fleeing from justice, in case, the bail is granted to the applicant/accused.
Considering the afore-said facts and circumstances, the present
-- 3 of 4 --
application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 filed by the applicant/accused
Raj Kishore is dismissed.
7. Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
8. Pursuant to directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021 titled as In Re Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail as well as in compliance of judgment titled as Ajay Verma
Vs. State, copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent through e-
mail.
Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed for.
Harvinder Singh Johal
Spl. Judge(NDPS)/ASJ
North Distt., Rohini Courts,
Delhi/21.04.2026(
j)
-- 4 of 4 --