Bimla Devi v. State

1. By way ofthese applications filed under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No. 24/2021 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Section 18/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20"" February 2021, a secret information was received at ISC, Crime Branch, Chankyapuri, New Delhi that one Rakesh would come at Dhaula Kuan to supply Opium to his associate. On the basis of this information, raid was conducted and two persons namely Suraj Devashi @ Suja Ram and Rakesh Kumar were apprehended exchanging the consignment containing Opium. Search ofthe 2022:DHC:5955 bag was conducted wherein 7 plastic packets were recovered. On being checked with Field Testing Kit, those packets were found to be containing Opium weighing 1 kg each. On 21"February 2021 FIR bearing No.24/2021 got registered against accused persons. During interrogation both the above mentioned accused persons disclosed names of petitioners herein Bimla Devi and Lai Babu Shah.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe petitioners submitted that the petitioners/applicants are respectable persons and have not committed any offence. The only evidence against the petitioners/applicants is the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioners that vide order dated M"'January, 2019, this Hon'ble Court in case titled as 'Dalip Singh @Langda Vs State',(BA No. 1312/2018)', granted bail on the ground that the main evidence against the petitioners/applicants is only the disclosure statement of co-accused. Therefore, the present petitioners/applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

4. Ms.Kusum Dhalla,learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that petitioners are supplier of opium and 7 kg was recovered from the possession of the co-accused which were supplied by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the consignment was sent by petitioner Bimla Devi(petitioner in Bail Appln. 3974/2021)through her brother Lai Babu Shah (petitioner in Bail Appln. 3991/2021) to be delivered to one Suraj Devashi @ Suja Ram. As per the CDR details both the petitioners were found in contact with each other on the day ofincident. Learned APP further submitted that the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. They have already been declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 11"" October 2021. It has also been submitted that the facts ofDalip Singh's case referred by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to this case because in that case accused person was granted bail after substantial period ofcustody whereas the petitioners herein are seeking anticipatory bail.

5. Heard. I have also perused the order dated 1"October 2021 passed by the Court below and the FIR.

6. As per the decision in ''Amit Ranjan Vs NCR(Bail Application NO. 1102/2019)" passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 5"' July 2019, anticipatory bail shall be granted only when there is material-on-record to show that prosecution case was inherently doubtful,and there is material-onrecord to show that there is possibility offalse implication. However, where there is an element ofcriminality,custodial interrogation is required.

7. In the present case, both the petitioners/applicants are principal accused who procured the contra-band and handed over to one co-accused Rakesh Kumar for delivering the same to Suja Ram @ Suraj. The location of petitioner/applicant Lai Babu Shah was found in Delhi on 20""February, 2021 and alleged to have delivered the parcels to Rakesh and Ali, who is also found in continuous communication, therefore, the case is made out against the petitioners/applicants. It is observed that the petitioners/ applicants are found to be evading their arrest and process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C have already been initiated against them. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is required.

8. Keeping in view seriousness of facts and circumstances mentioned above as also the fact that huge quantity ofcontraband was recovered from the possession of the co-accused which were allegedly supplied by the H petitioners. They have already been absconding,this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.

JANUARY 10,2022 CHANDRA DHARISINGH,J