New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court has recently granted bail to a Canadian citizen accused in an NDPS case. The court noted that he has no past criminal record and that recovery of contraband was not effective for him. He was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on February 6, 2024.
Justice Amit Mahajan granted bail to accused Mandeep Singh Gill after considering the submissions and facts of the case.
“Without commenting further on the merits of the case, I think that the applicant has prima facie established a case for grant of bail,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Justice Mahajan said, “I think that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
The high court directed the accused to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
As per NCB, on 17.01.2024, based on secret information, recovery of 2.496 kgs of Methamphetamine was made on examination of one parcel at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. in Najafgarh Industrial Area, which was destined for Adelaide, Australia.
The applicant was arrested on 06.02.2024, based on the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
The prosecution alleged that the accused supplied contraband to co-accused Gaurav Singh Chauhan on 13.01.2024, which was later recovered at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The contraband was allegedly transported in a car, as captured in CCTV footage.
Additionally, it is alleged that the accused supplied contraband to co-accused Vikramjit Singh on 19.01.2024, who then delivered it to Gaurav Singh on 22.01.2024. The prosecution also alleged telephonic connections between the applicant and Vikramjit Singh
The prosecution alleged that co-accused Gaurav Singh disclosed that a person in a car delivered the recovered contraband to him at DC Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, on 13.01.2024 between 7:30-8:30 AM.
During the investigation, it was found that the applicant had rented the said car from Pritam Singh from 12.01.2024 to 13.01.2024.
The prosecution claimed that CCTV footage showed the presence of two cars, one belonging to Gaurav Sing. Additionally, the applicant’s presence at the location is allegedly corroborated by the IPDR of his mobile number.
Lastly, the prosecution alleged that co-accused Vikramjit Singh disclosed the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking. It is further alleged that the applicant and Vikramjit Singh were in telephonic contact.
Advocate Amit Shahni appeared for the accused and submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case merely based on the disclosure statement of
the co-accused persons and no contraband is recovered from his possession or at his instance.
It was also submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attractive towards the applicant in the present case, and his bail application ought to be considered without applying the rigours thereof.
He further submitted that the applicant is a Canadian citizen with no prior criminal record and was in India for his wedding. His wife, newlyborn child, and elderly parents are dependent on him financially and emotionally.
On the other hand, Senior Standing Counsel (SSC) for the NCB opposes the grant of bail to the applicant. He submitted that the sequence of events prima facie establishes conspiracy on the part of the applicant.
He submitted that the applicant is part of a drug syndicate indulged in the illegal business of drug trafficking and thus, is not entitled to bail.
He also submitted that the applicant’s association with co-accused individuals, who were arrested with commercial quantities of narcotics, is established through call detail records (CDRs) and monetary transactions. He further submitted that the recovered substances were supplied by the applicant as part of the drug trafficking operations.
The CDR analysis reveals consistent communication between the applicant and the co-accused persons, NCB argued. The voluntary statements of the accused have been corroborated through further investigation, including CCTV footage and CDRs, which indicate the applicant’s involvement in supplying the contraband, he added.
After hearing the submissions the court noted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, with the allegations against him primarily based on the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
“It is a settled law that disclosure statement of a co-accused is of no evidentiary value in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence,” the bench said.
The prosecution has contended that the car of the applicant, being visible in the CCTV at the time disclosed by the co-accused, and the CDR location of the applicant corroborates
the disclosure statement of the co-accused that the applicant had supplied the contraband.
The bench said, “Undisputedly, the CCTV footage does not show the exchange of contraband. It further does not show that the applicant had given any packet/contraband to the co-accused.”
The presence of the applicant at the alleged place where the co-accused had taken delivery of the contraband, in the opinion of this Court, does not indicate that the applicant was the one who had delivered the contraband, the court said.
“The prosecution, thus, has failed to provide substantial evidence linking the applicant to the recovered contraband or to demonstrate his active involvement in the alleged offence,” Justice Mahajan said.