Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 4-25
SC 507-24
State Vs. Rafat Hussain
FIR No. 120/2024
PS Crime Branch
U/sec 21 NDPS Act
31.01.2025
This is an application under section 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Rafat Hussain.
Pr: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Hasim Alam, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Reply to the application filed. Copy supplied.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1.1 It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he
has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in JC since
29.07.2024. It is further submitted that accused/applicant has no
relation with other co-accused person and he has been arrayed in
the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement which
is not admissible. It is further submitted that search and seizure
proceedings were conducted without adhering to the mandatory
procedure prescribed under section 105 BNSS as no videography
or photography of the proceedings were carried out. It is further
submitted that no public witnesses were present at the time of
seizure. It is further submitted that there is no CDR connectivity
or financial transactions between the accused/applicant with
other co-accused persons. Hence, it is prayed that
accused/applicant be released on bail as he is ready to abide with
any condition imposed by the court.
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Rafat Hussain
1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
1.2 Ld. counsel has relied upon Tofan Singh Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC Online SC 882 and Bantu Vs. State
Bail Application No. 2287/2022 to fortify his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2.1 Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail application stating that as per reply
filed by IO on 14.06.2024, acting upon secret information,
accused Saurabh @ Gaurav was apprehended. During search of
accused, 160 grams smack was recovered from his possession.
During interrogation, accused Saurabh @ Gaurav disclosed that
he used to work for co-accused Sonu and Shanti @ Arti. CDR of
mobile number of accused Saurabh was also obtained which
reflects that accused Saurabh and Sonu were in regular touch
with each other.
2.2 On 23.06.2024, accused Sonu was also arrested and
total 150 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession.
Accused Sonu disclosed that he used to purchase smack/Heroin
from accused/applicant Rafat Hussain. During investigation on
29.07.2024, accused Rafat was also arrested and 275 grams
heroin was recovered from his possession.
2.3 It is submitted that accused/applicant is a habitual
offender as he is involved in 5 cases of NDPS Act and there is
every likelihood that accused/applicant may commit further
offence of similar nature, if he be released on bail.
Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also
gone through the judgments/orders relied upon by Ld. Counsel
for accused/applicant.
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Rafat Hussain
2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3.1 Allegations against the accused/applicant are serious
in nature. Initially, co-accused Saurabh @ Gaurav was
apprehended and 160 gram heroin was recovered from his
possession. On the disclosure statement of accused Saurabh @
Gaurav, name of co-accused Sonu and Shanti came into picture.
Co-accused Sonu was arrested and 150 grams heroin was
recovered from his possession. He used to supply the contraband
to co-accused Saurabh after purchasing the same from
accused/applicant Rafat Hussain. Accused/applicant Rafat was
arrested at the instance of co-accused Sonu and further 275
grams of heroin was recovered. Therefore, total 585 grams of
heroin has been recovered by the IO in this case to burst the drug
cartel.
3.2 The amount of quantity recovered from the
possession of accused persons falls under the category of
commercial in nature and bar of section 37 NDPS Act is
applicable. Therefore, the onus is upon the applicant to satisfy the
twin conditions imposed as mandated in judgment titled as Union
of India through NCB (Lucknow) Vs. Nawaj Khan Criminal
Appeal No. 1043/2021.
3.3 As far as plea of accused/applicant that no
videography or photography of the proceedings were carried out
by the investigating officer, is an irregularity committed by the
IO and it is matter of trial which cannot be considered at this
stage.
3.4 Considering the over all facts and circumstances,
and previous involvement of accused/applicant in NDPS cases,
there is every likelihood that he may commit further offence of
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Rafat Hussain
3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
similar nature, if he be released on bail.
3.5 The judgments relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant are not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts and moreover, granting bail is a
discretion which is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and
circumstance of each case.
3.6 In Mansab Ali Vs. Irsan and Anr. 2003 SC 707, it
has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that since the
jurisdiction is discretionary, it is required to be exercised with
great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an
individual and the interest of the society in general.
3.7 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for
grant of bail to accused/applicant Rafat Hussain. Therefore, the
application moved on behalf of the accused/applicant Rafat
Hussain stands dismissed.
Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
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.
Dhirendra Rana
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
31.01.2025
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Rafat Hussain
4/4
-- 4 of 4 --