Sudhir Vishnoi vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

J.R. Goel, J.—This is second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner in FIR No.4/04 dated 09.11.2004 registered at the Central Bureau of Narcotics,, Kota for the offence u/s 8/15 read with Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Narcotics and perused the material produced during the course of arguments.

It was, inter alia, contended that the accused-petitioner is languishing in jail for last about two years and despite of directions for expeditious trial, only five witnesses have so far been examined. It was next contended that co-accused Chhotu Ram has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench and the case of accused-petitioner is at par with that of co-accused Chhotu Ram. It was further contended that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the statement of co-accused Balwindra, recorded u/s 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and that evidence was not sufficient to connect the accused-petitioner with the crime. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in Jaan Mohammad alias Janney v. Union of India 2006(2) FER 173 and Fraincis Stanly @Stalin v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram 2007 RCC.

On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that huge quantity of contraband substance ''poppy straw'', weighing 6040 kg. was recovered from the truck, bearing registration No.RJ 14G 3536, which was of commercial quantity and the accused-petitioner was found involved in this crime. It was also contended that not only the co-accused Balwindra, on inquiry u/s 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act categorically stated the involvement of accused-petitioner in this crime but the accused-petitioner himself had made a confessional statement, on inquiry, recorded u/s 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was then contended that co-accused Chhotu Ram has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench on a different ground, that his name was not taken by the co-accused Balwindra, in his first statement recorded u/s 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was further contended that after rejection of the first bail application, no substantial change in the fact situation has taken place. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, 2001(2) ACJ 258 (S.C.) : 2001 Cri.LR (SC) 566, Babua @ Tazntul Hossain v. The State of Orissa 2001 Cri.LR (SC) 195 and Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira 2004 (2) CCC 312 (S.C.) : 2004 (2) ACJ 55 (S.C.) : 2003 Cri.LR (SC) (Suppl.) 142.

Having considered the rival contentions made at the Bar, without making any observation on merit, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the fact that accused-petitioner is involved in a matter where huge commercial quantity of contraband ''poppy-straw'' was recovered and at this stage it cannot be said that the case against accused-petitioner is groundless, and also keeping in view the embargo of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the fact that no substantial change in the fact situation has taken place after rejection of the first bail application, I do not deem it proper to allow this second bail application. Accordingly this second bail application is rejected.