Vipin Mittal vs. National Investigating Agency

Facts

The petitioner, Vipin Mittal, sought regular bail in FIR No. RC35/2022/NIA/DLI PS registered under the NDPS Act. The National Investigating Agency (NIA) alleged that the petitioner conspired to import heroin concealed in licorice roots from Afghanistan. The contraband, weighing 102.136 kgs and 0.648 kgs of heroin, was seized by customs officials at ICP, Atari, Amritsar on April 22, 2022. The consignment was imported by M/s. Shree Balaji Trading Company, of which the petitioner is the proprietor. The petitioner was arrested after a search. The charge-sheet was filed on December 16, 2022. The petitioner contended he was a mere intermediary, had no knowledge of the contraband, and the Rs. 11 lacs received was for the licorice roots, not the contraband. The State argued it was narcotics terrorism, despite terror provisions being removed from the charge-sheet.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that on a prima facie assessment, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's guilt might not be proved. The Court noted that the trial was likely to take time and it would be imprudent to keep the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely, especially considering his medical condition (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia). The Court found no material on record to suggest the petitioner was likely to commit any offence while on bail. The reasoning for granting bail was based on a prima facie evaluation of the evidence, the petitioner's medical condition, and the likely delay in the trial. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving serious offences under the NDPS Act, the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 can be satisfied if the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material that the accused is not guilty, especially when coupled with factors like medical condition and potential trial delay. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of a family member, subject to several conditions including not leaving the country, providing permanent address, appearing in court, joining investigation, keeping mobile location on, not indulging in criminal activity, and reporting to the IO weekly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the proprietor of the importing company, had knowledge of and conscious possession of the contraband (heroin) concealed within the licorice root consignment, thereby constituting an offence under the NDPS Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued he was merely an intermediary, falsely implicated, and had no knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. He claimed the consignment was a genuine trading transaction meant for a specific buyer, Zaidi, and the Rs. 11 lacs received was an advance for the licorice roots, not the contraband. He highlighted that the consignment was intercepted before he could take possession and that intercepted mobile communications did not discuss contraband. He also pointed out that the value of the contraband would be significantly higher than Rs. 11 lacs. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner was the consignee of the consignment containing a large quantity of heroin. It was argued that this was not the first such consignment and that the activity was akin to narcotics terrorism. The State also noted the petitioner used unusual communication applications, despite no specific data extracted regarding contraband in mobile chats.