Sandeep Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 371 dated 21.11.2023, registered under Sections 15(C), 18(C), 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR details the apprehension of Palvinder Singh alias Goldi with 500 grams of opium and later, 15 quintals of poppy husk and 1020 kg of Doda Post from a truck. The petitioner's brother allegedly had 40 calls with the co-accused, and the petitioner is named as a consignee in a GST invoice found in the truck. The petitioner claims false implication, but the court noted the large quantity of contraband and the alleged nexus with the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty of the offences under the NDPS Act, particularly given the commercial quantity of contraband involved. The court found the petitioner's claim of false implication unconvincing, especially considering the large quantity of drugs recovered, which could not be a case of planted recovery. The Court also invoked Section 35 of the NDPS Act, stating that a presumption of culpable mental state exists, and the petitioner had not provided any defense to disprove this. The nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused was inferred from the CDRs and the petitioner's name appearing as a consignee on a GST invoice found in the vehicle. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty of the offences under the NDPS Act, particularly concerning offences involving commercial quantity, as required by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act applies, and if the petitioner has provided a defense to disprove it? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the recovery of contraband was planted. He likely argued for the absence of direct evidence linking him to the possession or trafficking of the drugs. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's brother had numerous calls with the co-accused, and the petitioner was listed as a consignee in a GST invoice found in the vehicle carrying the contraband. This, coupled with the large quantity of drugs, indicated a nexus and involvement in the offence, thus negating reasonable grounds for believing in his innocence and raising the presumption of culpable mental state.