BAIL APPLN./4280/2024 of ARPAN ALIAS BABLOO Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Signature Not Verified

$~9*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHIJudgment Delivered on 25.03.2025*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHIJudgment Delivered on 25.03.2025+BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

ARPAN ALIAS BABLOO.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Janak RajAmbavat,Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr.Anmol Sachdeva and Mr. KushalKumar, Advs.Ambavat,Ms. Megha Saroa, Mr.Anmol Sachdeva and Mr. KushalKumar, Advs.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SIVishan Kumar ANTF, Crime Branch

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1.The present application has been filed under Section 483 read withSection 528 BNSS seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 120/2021under Sections 20/25/29 NPDS Act registered at PS Crime Branch, NorthWest, Delhi.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2022 secret informationwas received by SI Vishan Kumar that one person namely, Arpan @ Babloo(petitioner herein) alongwith his associate Suman, who are dealing in thesupply of heroin, would be coming from Sultanpuri to Mangolpuri Flyovernear Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi to supply contraband to unknown

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Page 1 of 6

Signature Not Verified

persons and if raid is conducted, they both can be apprehended alongwithhigh quantity of heroin.

3.Accordingly, police constituted raiding party and went to theinformed place. There the raiding party saw petitioner/ Arpan @ Bablooalongwith co-accused Suman on motorcycle. They had stopped themotorcycle near Mangolpuri Flyover where they were waiting for someone.The police overpowered both, the petitioner, as well as, Suman and took theminto custody.

4.Upon search of petitioner, 300 gms of heroin was recovered from theleft side pocket of his jeans. Likewise, from co-accused Suman, 200 gms ofheroin was recovered from her pink coloured purse.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Sumanhas been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed inBAIL APPLN. 3271/2024. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since01.07.2022 and till date only 02 witnesses have been examined and 18witnesses are yet to be examined.

6.He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and hisoverall jail conduct is satisfactory. He further submits that the petitioner wasgranted interim bail on number of occasions and the same was never misusedby him. He, therefore, urges that the petitioner be released on bail.

7.Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State hasargued on the lines of the status report. He submits that the quantity recoveredfrom the petitioner is commercial. Besides that, 200 gms of heroin wasrecovered from co-accused Suman who was accompanying the petitionerwhen they were apprehended, therefore, the total recovery is 500 gms. He,

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Page 2 of 6

Signature Not Verified

therefore, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to bail since the rigors ofSection 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 are applicable.

8.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learnedAPP for the State.

9.The recovery made from the present petitioner is although ofcommercial quantity but it is not in controversy that the petitioner is notinvolved in any other similar case. Further, the custody period of thepetitioner till date is more than two years as borne out from the nominal roll.

10.A perusal of the status report also shows that the prosecution has citedas many as 20 witnesses, of which only two (02) have been examined till date,therefore, the trial is likely to take long time. Therefore, the petitioner isentitled to the benefit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RabiPrakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109. The relevant paras

of which reads thus:

“4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 ofthe NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State hasbeen duly heard. Thus, the 1[st]condition stands complied with. Sofar as the 2[nd]condition re: formation of opinion as to whetherthere are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is notguilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he hasalready spent more than three and half years in custody. Theprolonged incarceration, generally militates against the mostprecious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution and in such situation, the conditional libertymustoverridethestatutoryembargocreatedunderSection 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State hasbeen duly heard. Thus, the 1[st]condition stands complied with. Sofar as the 2[nd]condition re: formation of opinion as to whetherthere are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is notguilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he hasalready spent more than three and half years in custody. Theprolonged incarceration, generally militates against the mostprecious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution and in such situation, the conditional libertymustoverridethestatutoryembargocreatedunderSection 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.Likewise, in Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt. of NCT ofDelhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail toDelhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Signature Not Verified

the accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered,having regard to his custody of 01 year and 11 months, the fact that theaccused had no criminal antecedents and that the conclusion of trial wouldtake time. The relevant paras of the decision reads as under:

“8. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that theappellant has, as on date, spent more than 01 year and 11months in custody. The investigation is complete butframing of the charges is yet to be done. The conclusion oftrial will thus take time. There are no criminal antecedents.

9. It is seriously debatable question of fact whether theappellant was also found in the conscious possession of thecontraband (smack). But such question of fact willobviously be determined by the Trial Court at an appropriatestage. That being so, it seems to us that as of now, the twintest of Section 37 of the Act, need not be invoked against theappellant.

10. Takingintoconsiderationthetotalityofthecircumstances, especially the period of custody undergoneby the appellant however, without expressing any views onthe merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly,the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to hisfurnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the TrialCourt.”

(emphasis supplied)

12.Although, Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 has been invoked in thepresent case, but the co-accused Suman, who was accompanying thepetitioner on the same motorcycle when they were both apprehended andfrom whom the recovery of intermediate quantity was also made, has alreadybeen granted bail.

13.In view the above decisions and having regard to the circumstances inthe entirety, especially the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, his

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Signature Not Verified

clean antecedents and the fact that the trial is still at the initial stage, theconclusion of which would take time, this Court is of the view that thepetitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail.

14.Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishinga personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amountto the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/JMFC/Duty JM, further subjectto the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not leave NCR without prior permission of theconcerned Court.concerned Court.

(ii) The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the InvestigatingOfficer on which he will remain available during the pendency of thetrial.

(iii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, theapplicantshallpromptlyinformthesametotheconcernedInvestigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court.(iv) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch withany prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.(v) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Courtduring the pendency of the trial.

15.It is clarified that the observations made herein above are only for thelimited purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall notbe construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

16.The application is disposed of.

17.Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent

for necessary compliance.

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Signature Not Verified

18.Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

MARCH 25, 2025/N.S.ASWAL

BAIL APPLN. 4280/2024

Page 6 of 6