InBail Appln. 815/2023 -DEL HC- ‘Presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of NDPS Act was attracted in the case’: Delhi High Court rejects bail plea in narcotics drugs case
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela [13-09-2023]

Read Order:Vishal Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi)

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 15, 2023: The Delhi High Court, in a recent case filed under Sections 22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), has rejected the bail application of the accused.

In this case, as per the prosecution's account, the events transpired as follows: On the night of January 15-16, 2019, two co-accused individuals, Lokesh Mehta and Sunil Kumar, were apprehended, leading to the discovery of approximately 5.2 kilograms of a suspected psychotropic substance. Following these developments and based on information provided by a secret informer, another associate named Satish Sahu from Mumbai was arrested. Satish Sahu, in turn, disclosed information that led to the apprehension of accused Neeraj Arora, along with his accomplice Rajesh Dutta. During the investigation, Neeraj Arora, revealed his direct connection with Vishal Singh (applicant herein), who allegedly pressured him to establish Ketamine production. Neeraj Arora further claimed that he supplied the Ketamine he produced to Vishal Singh, who, in turn, distributed it to contacts in Mumbai and London.

The applicant in this case, had been evading arrest, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against him by the Special Judge (NDPS), and he was subsequently declared a Proclaimed Offender by the Trial Court. Finally, acting on secret information, authorities conducted a raid at a shop where they arrested the applicant.

The single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedelanoted that ordinarily, when there was no recovery effected from a person, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act, get diluted subject to there being no other attending circumstance incriminating or at least, prima facie, indicating the complicity or culpability of such person.

The bench observed that the prosecution had presented the transcript of an intercepted conversation between the applicant and a co-accused. Upon examination, the conversation appeared to involve a discussion about Ketamine and its production methods. Furthermore, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had reportedly confirmed the voice samples of both the applicant and the co-accused, as well as the content of the conversation, which matched the provided transcript.

The bench further observed that during the raid, a significant quantity of Tramadol and raw materials for the production of the contraband were seized. This seizure occurred at the instance of the same co-accused person with whom the applicant was alleged to have had the earlier conversation about Ketamine production. This raised some doubts about the applicant's innocence in the matter.

The bench remarked that while it is mindful of the principle that every person accused of an offence is considered innocent until proven guilty, it also noted that in the present case, the presumption of a culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act seemed to be applicable to the facts.

The bench also took into consideration the prosecution's argument that the applicant had been evading arrest, and proceedings under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be initiated. The applicant was arrested only after a year of being declared a Proclaimed Offender.

In light of the aforementioned factors, the court rejected the applicant's request for regular bail.