Alok Kumar Verma, J
1. These three Bail Applications have been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with NCB Crime No.05/NCB/DDN/2020 (Special Sessions
Trial No.136 of 2021, “Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Dehradun vs. Ankit alias Kaka and Othersâ€), registered with NCB Sub-
Zone, Dehradun for the offence under Sections 8/22/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as, ‘the Act 1985â€). All these three bail applications arise from one crime number i.e. NCB Crime No.05, therefore, these bail applications are
being considered and decided by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau (in short, ‘NCB’) submitted that on 24.12.2020 at around 12:30
hours, a secret information was received by Ashu Sharma, Junior Intelligence Officer of NCB, that two persons, namely, Ankit alias Kaka along with
motorcycle bearing No.UK16C9943 and Vipin Kumar son of Satish Kumar along with motorcycle bearing No.UK07DB5409 were going to sell drug
injections, Diazepam, Buprenorphine and Phenargan to a person, near Tibetten Settlement Office, Lakhanwala, Herbartpur, Dehrdaun. On the basis of
the said secret information, 150 ampoules of injections (Buprenorphine â€" 50 Nos, Diazepamâ€" 50 Nos. and Phenarganâ€" 50 Nos.) were
recovered from the possession of the co-accused Ankit alias Kaka and 294 ampoules of injections (Buprenorphine â€" 98 Nos., Diazepam â€" 98
Nos. and Phenargan â€" 98 Nos.) were recovered from the possession of Vipin Kumar on 24.12.2020 at near Dhogu Yugualling, Tibetan Settlement
Office, Lakhanwala, Herbartpur, Dehrdaun. Consequently, notices under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, were issued to Ankit alias Kaka and Vipin
Kumar. In his voluntary statements, recorded on 24.12.2020 and 25.12.2020, before Mr. Ashu Sharma, Ankit alias Kaka had confessed his guilt that
the said injections were recovered from his possession which he had purchased from Vipin Kumar to sell to various boys of Dehradun. Thereafter, he
was arrested on 25.12.2020 at 15:30 hours.
4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, submitted that the statements of Vipin Kumar son of Satish Kumar was recorded under Section
67 of the Act, 1985 on 24.12.2020 and 25.12.2020. In his statements, he stated that the said recovered injections were purchased by him from a
person, namely, Gaurav alias Rajat Kumar (present applicant). Vipin Kumar was arrested on 25.12.2020 at 15:40 hours.
5. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, further submitted that on 25.05.2021, house of Rajat Kumar was searched, but, during the
search, no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was found. At that time, Rajat Kumar was not present. A notice under Section 67 of the Act, 1985
was issued to him. He appeared at NCB Office on 27.05.2021. His statement was recorded. In his statement, he stated that he had purchased the
injections from Veer Medical Store, Thana Bhawan, Shamli. Vipin Kumar, the present applicant â€" accused, was the owner of Veer Medical Store.
Rajat Kumar was arrested on 27.05.2021.
6. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, submitted that a notice under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 was issued to Vipin Kumar (present
applicant). On 02.06.2021, Vipin Kumar (present applicant) appeared at NCB Office and recorded his voluntary statement. In his voluntary statement,
he did not accept his involvement in the trafficking of Diazepam, Buprenorphine injections, but, at the same time he accepted that he used to sell
Phenargan injections to Rajat Kumar (co-accused) without prescription slips of doctors. A mobile phone of Rajat Kumar was seized. The said mobile
phone was sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. On analyzing the forensic report, chatting regarding the purchase and sale of
Diazepam and Buprenorphine injections were found between Rajat Kumar (Mobile Number 8057387980) and Vipin Kumar (present applicant)
(Mobile Number 8171726672). On the basis of forensic report, a fresh notice under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 was issued to Vipin Kumar (present
applicant).
7. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, further submitted that during the investigation, the name of Sharad Bhargava (present applicant)
came into light. He was arrested by NCB, New Delhi, in other case. After taking permission from the court concerned, voluntary statement of
suspected Sharad Bhargava was recorded in Dasna Jail District Ghaziabad on 12.06.2021. In his statement, he stated that 24,000 ampoules of
Buprenorphin injections, I.P. Batch No-DA-187 were sold to him by M/s K.D. Pharma. On 19.06.2021, he was remanded to judicial custody in this
matter.
8. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, submitted that a complaint was filed on 21.06.2021 before the Special Judge (NDPS Act),
Dehradun. After filing the said complaint against the co-accused Ankit alias Kaka, Vipin Kumar son of Satish Kumar, Rajat Kumar alias Gaurav and
Sharad Bhargava, Vipin Kumar (present applicant) appeared at NCB Office on 23.11.2021. His statement was recorded. In his statement, he stated
that he used to sell Buprenorphine, Diazepam and Phenargan injections to Rajat Kumar. Vipin Kumar (present applicant) was arrested on 23.11.2021.
9. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, further submitted that it was found that the co-accused Ankit alias Kaka (Mobile Number
8958384564, 9084072585), the co-accused Vipin Kumar (Mobile Number 8755020215, 9675850215), the present applicant â€" accused Rajat Kumar
alias Gaurav, (Mobile Number 6396644810), and, the present applicant â€" accused Vipin Kumar (Mobile Number 8171726672) were frequently
connected with each other through their abovementioned mobile phone numbers.
10. According to Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, 24,000 ampoules of Buprenorphin injections were purchased by the Firm Ganpati
Trading Company. The present applicant â€" accused Sharad Bhargava was the proprietor of the Ganpati Trading Company and the said ampoules of
Buprenorphin injections, which were purchased by the applicant â€" accused Sharad Bhargava, were recovered from the co-accused persons on
24.12.2020.
11. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for NCB, further submitted that complaint cases have been filed against the present applicant â€
accused persons.
12. Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, submitted that the applicant â€" accused Sharad Bhargava’s firm had
purchased 24,000 ampoules of Buprenorphine injections from M/s K.D. Pharma. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, the present
applicant’s case was that the said contraband was sold by the present applicant Sharad Bhargava to M/s Sunil Verma and Company, Dehradun.
However, Mr. Sunil Verma has stated under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 that he did not purchase any such drug from Ganpati Trading Company. Mr.
A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, argued that no such evidence has been produced by the complainant that the contraband,
recovered from the co-accused persons on 24.12.2020, was purchased by the present applicant â€" Sharad Bhargava. The learned Senior Advocate
further submitted that the applicant â€" accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They were not present at the spot of
seizure. The alleged contraband was not recovered from the possession of the present applicants. The name of the present applicants, namely, Vipin
Kumar and Rajat Kumar alias Gaurav have come into light in the confessional statements of the co-accused persons. The applicants had no
connection with the alleged crime. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the statements, recorded under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, is not
admissible in evidence. In support of the said submissions, the learned Senior Advocate has relied upon paragraph no.10 of the judgment dated
10.01.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.242 of 2022â, €œState By (NCB)
Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Another and batchâ€, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,
10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 that a confessional statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
13. The applicants were not present at the spot of the seizure. The seized contraband was not recovered from the physical or conscious possession of
the present applicants. The said call details will be examined at the stage of trial. The applicant â€" accused Vipin Kumar is in judicial custody since
24.11.2021, the applicant â€" accused Rajat Kumar alias Gaurav is in custody since 27.05.2021 and the applicant â€" accused Sharad Bhargava is in
custody since 19.06.2021. Complaints have already been filed, therefore, there are no chance of tampering with the evidence.
14. Personal liberty is a very precious right. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused persons in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to
secure the attendance of the accused.
15. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep
the applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view
that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.
16. The bail applications are allowed.
17. Let the applicants â€" Rajat Kumar alias Gaurav, Vipin Kumar son of Bir Sain and Sharad Bhargava be released on bail on their executing their
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
i) The applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
iii) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
18. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the complainant will be free to move the court for
cancellation of bail.
