Rajiv Kumar vs. State Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, an Area Sales Manager for Leeford Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., sought regular bail in FIR No. 147/2024, registered under Sections 22/29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that on April 10, 2024, 2,40,000 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from two accused, Rahul Pal and Jagdeep. Further investigation revealed that the contraband was sourced from Prem Chand, who in turn had dealings with Pramod Kumar. Pramod Kumar disclosed that he procured the contraband at the direction of the petitioner, Rajeev Kumar. Subsequently, on April 16, 2024, 59.238 Kgs of Alprazolam tablets were recovered from Prem Chand and Pramod Kumar. The petitioner was arrested on April 17, 2024. The prosecution contended that the petitioner had misrepresented the contents of 11 cartons to Dewesh Kumar, instructing him to store them, and that these cartons contained contraband. The petitioner argued he was implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement and nothing was recovered from him.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application, finding that the petitioner had not satisfied the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. The Court noted that the recovered contraband was of commercial quantity. The reasoning was based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the statement of Dewesh Kumar, who stated that the petitioner had asked him to store 11 cartons, misrepresenting their contents as multivitamins. Furthermore, the Court considered the statement of Rishab Kumar Tyagi, owner of Adhar Pharmaceuticals, who testified that he sold 1,50,000 strips to Vashu Pharma at the petitioner's instance. Rishab Kumar Tyagi also produced an order form given by the petitioner, GST bills, transport agency bilties, and WhatsApp chats, which corroborated his statement. The Court also took into account that Vishal Verma, owner of Vashu Pharma, stated that the petitioner had misused his drug license to order medicine in his name. Given these circumstances and the petitioner's custody period of approximately 10 months, the Court concluded that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met for granting bail. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has satisfied the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail, considering the nature and quantity of the contraband recovered and the evidence linking him to the conspiracy and transportation of the psychotropic substance? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Pramod Kumar. He contended that he had no knowledge of the actual contents of the cartons, which he believed to be multivitamins, and that nothing was recovered directly from his possession. He also highlighted that he had been in custody for approximately 10 months. Respondent's (State NCT of Delhi) arguments: The State argued that the recovered contraband was taken on the directions of the petitioner from Dewesh Kumar. They presented statements from Dewesh Kumar and Rishab Kumar Tyagi, who corroborated the petitioner's involvement in storing and arranging the transportation of the contraband. The State emphasized that the recovered contraband was of commercial quantity and that the petitioner had misused a drug license to procure medicines in his name.