Order 34

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Sanjay Mandal
1/5
IA No. 10-2025
SC NO. 507-2024
State vs Sanjay Mandal
FIR NO. 120/2024
PS Crime Branch
U/S 21/29/61/85 NDPS Act
01.08.2025
This is 5th application u/s 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail filed on
behalf of applicant/accused Sanjay Mandal.
Present: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Prashant Kumar, 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 on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused and he is in JC since 18.12.2024. It is further
submitted that nothing incriminating contraband has been recovered
from the possession or at the instance of accused/applicant and all the
recoveries have been planted upon him. It is further submitted that
arrest of accused/applicant is illegal as IO has failed to comply with
provision of section50 NDPS Act. It is further submitted that charge
sheet has already been filed and trial shall considerable time. Hence, it
is prayed that accused/applicant be released on bail as he is ready to
abide with any condition imposed by the court.
1.2 Ld. Counsel has relied upon State of Rajasthan Vs.
Balchand (1997) 4 SCC 308, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC
-- 1 of 5 --
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Sanjay Mandal
2/5
40 and State of Kerala Vs. Raneef Crl. Appeal No. 03/2011 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, co-accused Saurabh @
Gaurav was apprehended. During search of accused, 160 grams
smack was recovered from his possession. Accused Saurabh @
Gaurav was arrested and contraband was seized. During
interrogation, accused Saurabh @ Gaurav disclosed that he was going
to supply the recovered contraband to accused/applicant Sanjay
Mandal. Accused Saurabh @ Gaurav also 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 also disclosed that he alongwith
bhabhi Shanti is involved in
supplying contraband. Accused Sonu disclosed that he used to
purchase smack/Heroin from accused 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 further submitted that accused Sanjay Mandal was
declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 15.10.2024 and later
on he was arrested on 18.12.2024. It is submitted that
accused/applicant is a habitual offender as he is involved in criminal
-- 2 of 5 --
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Sanjay Mandal
3/5
activities since 1998 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.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3.1 Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in
nature. Initially accused Saurabh @ Gaurav was arrested and 160
gram smack was recovered from his possession. Co-accused Saurabh
@ Gaurav, disclosed that he was going to supply the contraband to
accused/applicant Sanjay Mandal. Efforts were made by the police to
arrest accused/applicant, however, he was evading his arrest and
subsequently, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
15.10.2024.
3.2 Accused/applicant is a habitual offender as he is
involved in 14 criminal cases out of which three cases are of NDPS
Act. It is also matter of record that accused/applicant is involved in
criminal activities since 1998 and chances of reformation of
accused/applicant is very less as after getting out on bail in other
cases, he committed offences again and again.
3.3 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
-- 3 of 5 --
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Sanjay Mandal
4/5
which is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance of
each case.
3.4 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.
3.5 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav 2005 SC 91, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused has a
right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court
entertaining such subsequent bail application has a duty to consider
the reasons or grounds on which the earlier bail applications were
rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the
fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one
taken in the earlier application.
3.6 All the grounds pleaded in this application were
available with accused/applicant at the time of withdrawal of
application on 27.03.2025. Thereafter, another bail application was
moved on behalf of accused/applicant which was dismissed for non
appearance vide order dated 29.05.2025 and these grounds were also
available at that time also. Hence, I do not find any fresh ground
pleaded on behalf of accused/applicant in this application.
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 Sanjay Mandal. Therefore, the
application moved on behalf of the accused/applicant Sanjay Mandal
stands dismissed.
-- 4 of 5 --
FIR No. 120/2024
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Sanjay Mandal
5/5
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
Spl. Judge, ASJ (NDPS)
North Distt., Rohini Courts,
Delhi. 01.08.2025
-- 5 of 5 --