In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the case of possession of contraband in a vehicle was carefully examined. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the contraband on 08.05.2022 and the subsequent production of the case property before the Ld. MM on 09.05.2022. Stay tuned to learn more about the legal implications and conclusions drawn in this case.
Facts
- The petitioner has been apprehended along with another accused based on secret information received.
- During a cursory search, 100 grams of Heroin was recovered from the petitioner.
- The prosecution has requested for samples to be sent to the FSL within 72 hours for testing.
- A second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for consideration.
Arguments
- The petitioner claims to not have been in possession of the contraband as it was found in a car registered under the names of co-accused Ravi, Imran, and Aamna.
- The disclosure leading to arrests was made by a co-accused during the investigation of the cartel.
- The co-accused mentioned by name were granted bail by the trial court.
- The contraband was recovered from the car driven by co-accused Sameem, with the petitioner seated on the passenger seat.
- The petitioner was aware of the presence of the contraband in the car.
- The petitioner’s name was disclosed in the disclosure of co-accused Imran as one of the carriers for the supply of heroin.
- The recovery was made on 08.05.2022 and the case property was produced before the Ld. MM on 09.05.2022, ensuring no possibility of tampering with the samples.
Analysis
- Reliance is placed on various legal precedents such as Sukhchain Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab and others, Union Of India v. Lalthangliantthangtei, Valsala v. State Of Kerala, Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh v. State, Satnam Singh Sattu v. State of Punjab, and many more.
- In Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab, the limitations on granting bail for offenses involving a commercial quantity are discussed.
- It is emphasized that ‘possession’ is a mental state with statutory recognition under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
- Further reliance is placed on Union of India vs Mohd. Nawaz Khan and other relevant cases.
- The delay in forwarding samples to FSL does not imply prejudice, and the seals of the samples are to be examined after the witness testimony.
- Citing various judgments like Mohan Lal v State of Punjab, Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Punjab v. Lakhwinder Singh, and others, it is argued that no grounds for bail are made out in the present case.
- Written submissions have been considered, and the well-settled principles of law referenced by both parties are acknowledged.
- The statutory recognition of possession under Section 35 of the NDPS Act and the burden of proof on the person claiming lack of conscious possession in a vehicle are highlighted.
- The judgment refers to Madan Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh to reinforce the burden of proof in cases of possession in a vehicle.
- Merely not driving the vehicle does not mean lack of conscious possession of contraband.
- Physical possession requires dominion, control, and knowledge of contraband.
- Bail is granted based on reasonable belief in innocence and potential future offenses.
- Petitioner was apprehended with co-accused in a car, reasons for presence need explanation.
- Knowledge of contraband possession must be inferred from case facts and circumstances.
- Section 50 NDPS Act not applicable for vehicle or bag searches.
- Difficult to presume petitioner’s unawareness of contraband concealment in car dicky.
- Absence of contraband on petitioner’s person does not negate scrutiny under NDPS Act.
- Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from car dicky is significant.
Decision
- Application dismissed
- Pending applications disposed of
Case Title: KALYAN RAM Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:4568)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-3204/2023
