2020 (4) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies bail in criminal conspiracy case involving narcotics possession.

Paramjit Singh Gulati Versus Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Paramjit Singh Gulati Versus Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - TMI Issues Involved:1. Alleged criminal conspiracy and possession of narcotics and controlled substances.2. Recovery of contraband substances from various premises.3. Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.4. Applicant's retraction from his statement and claims of illegal detention.5. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.6. Ownership and possession of the premises from which contraband was recovered.7. Connection of the applicant to the export consignment and the alleged criminal activities.Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Criminal Conspiracy and Possession of Narcotics and Controlled Substances:The applicant was charged with offenses under Sections 29, 28 read with Sections 23 & 29, and Section 22 read with Section 29 & 25A of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was alleged to be in criminal conspiracy with others to deal, possess, and export various narcotics and psychotropic substances illegally out of India. The consignment intended for export contained 151.98 kgs of Ketamine, a psychotropic substance, and was scheduled to be exported to Malaysia. Additionally, 200 kgs of Ketamine in different solutions and other controlled substances were recovered from his premises.2. Recovery of Contraband Substances from Various Premises:The DRI officers, acting on secret intelligence, seized 151.980 kgs of Ketamine from the Air Cargo Complex at IGI Airport on 18.07.2012. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of Ephedrine Hydrochloride, Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, and cash from the applicant's residential and godown premises. The CRCL tests confirmed the substances as Ketamine Hydrochloride, Ephedrine Hydrochloride, and Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride. The possession of these substances was in violation of the NDPS Act.3. Statements Recorded Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:During the investigation, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. These statements revealed that the applicant and his associate had previously exported drug consignments concealed in shipments declared as henna and chaat masala. The statements also indicated that they had sent about 1000 kgs of contraband substances out of India.4. Applicant's Retraction from His Statement and Claims of Illegal Detention:The applicant retracted his statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, claiming he was illegally detained and tortured to sign blank papers. He argued that the recovery of contraband was not made from his premises and that he was not arrested immediately after the alleged recovery, indicating no contraband was found.5. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:The applicant contended that the small quantities of controlled substances recovered did not attract the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the court noted that the recoveries, including 200 kgs of Ketamine, were of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 37.6. Ownership and Possession of the Premises from Which Contraband Was Recovered:The applicant claimed that the godown from which 200 kgs of Ketamine was recovered belonged to another person named Paramjit Singh @ Chhotu. However, the landlord's testimony identified the applicant as the person who had rented the premises. The court found this contention unconvincing at this stage.7. Connection of the Applicant to the Export Consignment and the Alleged Criminal Activities:The DRI's investigation revealed that the applicant was connected to the export consignment through emails and statements. The applicant's email IDs contained documents related to the export consignments and hawala transactions. The court noted that the applicant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was self-inculpatory and had to be accepted as correct at this stage.Conclusion:The court concluded that the applicant was involved in the criminal conspiracy and possession of commercial quantities of narcotics and controlled substances. The evidence against him, including his statements and the recoveries made, sufficed to deny his bail application. The court found no merit in the applicant's claims and thus declined the application for bail.