Interim Order 34

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 9-24
SC 747-23
State Vs. Neeraj
FIR No. 117/2023
PS Crime Branch
U/sec 15/25/29 NDPS Act
21.09.2024 at 10:15 AM
This is an application under section 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Neeraj.
Pr: None for the State.
Sh. S. P. Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
SI Rajesh is present on behalf of IO SI Manish.
Reply to the application already filed. Copy already
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
07.06.2023. It is further submitted that investigation against
accused has already been completed and no useful purpose will
be served in keeping the accused in custody. It is further
submitted that co-accused Shanker Lal Dhakar @ Shankar
Dhakad and Pushpender Kumar have already been granted
regular bail and role of present accused/applicant is similar to
those accused persons. Hence, it is prayed that accused/applicant
be released on bail on the ground of parity as he is ready to abide
with any condition imposed by the court.
1.2 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Amarendra Pandey Vs.
the State NCT of Delhi Bail Application No. 1799/2024 decided
on 25the July 2024, Vikram Vs. State Bail Application No.
FIR No. 117/2023
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Neeraj
1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
1089/2023, Phundreimayum Yas Khan Vs. State (GNCT of
Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine Del 135, Tofan Singh Vs. State of T.N,
2020 SCC Online SC 882, Deepak Nagiya Vs. State (2023) SCC
OnLine Del 5641, Mohd. Muslim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023
SCC OnLine SC 352 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. Crl. A. 2787/2024 to fortify his arguments.
Since none has appeared on behalf of State, hence,
arguments put forth by SI Rajesh and reply filed by IO are hereby
considered.
ARGUMENTS BY SI RAJESH
2. Bail application has been vehemently opposed
stating that on the basis of secret information, on 17.05.2023 a
raid was conducted near Bhalaswa Jheel, New Pusta Road,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi and on the pointing out of informer,
accused Naresh Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar Mishra were
apprehended alongwith Swift Dezire car bearing No. DL 1ZA
5796. Upon checking the car, three white plastic bags were
recovered which were found to be containing 20+20+15= 55 kgs
of Doda Post (Polly Straw). Accused persons were arrested and
contraband was seized. It is further submitted that during
investigation, co-accused Naresh Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar
Mishra disclosed that they used to supply Doda Post to
accused/application Neeraj in Delhi and accordingly,
accused/applicant Neeraj Kumar Sharma (receiver) was also
arrested on 07.06.2023. It is further submitted that many
financial transactions were found between accused/applicant and
source of contraband namely Shankar, who is evading his arrest.
FIR No. 117/2023
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Neeraj
2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
It is further submitted that CDR connectivity was found between
Naresh Kumar Gupta, Dilip Kumar Mishra and accused/applicant
Neeraj. As per CDR connectivity was also found between
applicant/accused Neeraj and supplier Shankar Dhakad. It is
further submitted that recovered car was also found registered in
the name of applicant/accused Neeraj Kumar Sharma.
Arguments heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the judgments/orders relied upon by Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3.1 Accused/applicant is seeking bail on the ground of
parity as co-accused persons Shankar Lal Dhakar has been
granted bail and their roles are similar to present accused. The
arguments of Ld. Counsel is misconceived as his role is different
from co-accused Shankar Lal Dhakar. He is receiver of the
contraband recovered from the possession of co-accused Naresh
Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar Mishra. The vehicle from which
the contraband was seized was found registered in the name of
accused/applicant. There is a CDR connectivity between
accused/applicant, accused Dilip Kumar Mishra, Naresh Kumar
Gupta and Shankar Dhakad. accused/applicant was in touch with
accused Naresh Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar Mishra when
they were procuring seized contraband from Shankar Lal Dhakar
on his directions. There are money transactions between
accused/applicant and source of contraband namely Shankar Lal
Dhakar and he transferred total amount of Rs. 3,14,500/- in the
bank account of Mangi Devi (mother of accused Shankar Lal
Dhakar).
FIR No. 117/2023
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Neeraj
3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
3.2 Allegations against the accused are serious in nature
as he is one of the active member of drug cartel. The amount of
quantity recovered from the possession of co-accused person
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 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.
3.4 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 factual grounds have already been discussed
by the court while dismissing earlier application dated
03.08.2023. Moreover, ground of parity was also available with
FIR No. 117/2023
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Neeraj
4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
the accused when he withdrew bail application before Hon’ble
High Court on 21.08.2024. Hence, I find no 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. Therefore, the application
moved on behalf of the accused/applicant 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
21.09.2024
FIR No. 117/2023
	PS Crime Branch
	State Vs. Neeraj
5/5
-- 5 of 5 --