Paramjit Singh Gulati vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

,,

Anu Malhotra, J",,

The applicant Paramjit Singh Gulati in custody since 20.07.2012 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 29, 28 r/w",,

Sections 23 & 29 and Section 22 r/w Section 29 & 25A r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 with which he has been charged on 05.11.2014 seeks",,

the grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The applicant is alleged to have been in criminal conspiracy with other persons named",,

Atul Aggarwal, Vicky, Paramjit Singh @ Chotu, Pahalwan, Gaurav Ahlawat @ Rakoo and Gaurav Sharma (who have since not been arrested) to",,

deal and possess and export various narcotics and psychotropic or controlled substances illegally out of India and in furtherance thereof allegedly,,

attempted to export or transship out of India a consignment having concealed therein 151.98 kgs of Ketamine, a psychotropic substance included in the",,

schedule of the NDPS Act, 1985 which consignment was scheduled to be exported on 18.07.2012 to Khairol Nizam Hasim, Penang, Malaysia under",,

AWB No.618-28211901 dated 16.07.2017 and shipping bill No. 9880760 dated 17.07.2012 in the name of M/s Sagar Impex, 2533-18, 2nd Floor, Gali",,

Laltain Wali, Naya Bazar, New Delhi (IEC Code No.0509044794), with allegations also against the petitioner herein of having been found in",,

possession of 200 kgs of Ketamine in different solutions of rose water and liquid glucose etc illegally which was recovered on 19.07.2012 from his,,

godown premises at Khasra No.755/2/1, Mundka Village, Delhi; and of having been found in possession of 25.5 gms of Ephedrine Hydrochloride; and",,

24.5 gms of Psedoephedrine Hydrochloride; and 215 gms more of Ephedrine Hydrochloride which were recovered on 19.07.2012 from two other,,

premises i.e. the residential premises at G-48, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, the office godown premises at G-41 (basement), Bali Nagar, New",,

Delhi both of which substances are declared to be controlled substances under Section 9A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and that the petitioner was in",,

possession of the said controlled substances in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985.",,

The brief facts set forth through the order dated 27.05.2016 in the bail application of the present applicant as detailed by the then Special Judge,",,

NDPS, South District Saket are to the effect:-",,

“3. The brief facts of the case are that while acting upon a secret intelligence regarding a Delhi based drug syndicate engaged in export,,

of narcotic drugs by way of concealment thereof in some consignments, the DRI officers had seized a consignment of about 151.980 KG of",,

white colour crystal powder from the area of Air Cargo Complex, IGl Airport, New Delhi on 18.07.2012. The above consignment of white",,

colour crystal powder was being exported to Malaysia and it was contained in three cartons/boxes bearing no. 19, 20 and 21, which further",,

contained 38 cloth bags each weighing around 1.02 KG, and was a part of a big consignment consisting of 24 such corrugated boxes/",,

cartons contained in three palets. The secret information was that a consignment of drugs is being exported by concealment thereof in,,

various handicraft items like lady purse, henna powder and imitation jewellery etc, and the above seized cloth bags, i.e. 38 cloth bags each",,

contained in the above three cartons, were found to be having the marking of Neha Rachni Mehandi.",,

The investigation had led the DRI team to the applicant/accused Paramjit Singh Gulati and Atul Agarwal (accused no. 2), as it was found",,

that the above export consignment was being exported by the above applicant/accused, as per the shipping documents seized in this case,",,

and accused Atul Aggarwal was acting as his agent in the export of the above consignment. The DRI officers had conducted simultaneous,,

searches at various premises of both the accused and from the residential premises at G-48, Man Sarovar Garden, New Delhi of",,

applicant/accused also, they had recovered two different pouches Marked as EPH and PSE weighing 25.5 Grams (gross weight) and 24.5",,

Grams (gross weight) respectively containing some white colour crystalline powder, a cash amount of Rs. 1,57,30,000/- (one crore fifty",,

seven lacs and thirty thousand), 13 mobile phones of various brands and some documents. Two godowns of the applicant/accused situated at",,

G-41 (Basement), Bali Nagar, New Delhi and at Khasra No. 755/2/1 at Mundka Village, Delhi were also raided and from the first godown",,

also 215 Grams of white colour crystalline powder and further a cash amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (three lacs and fifty thousand) were",,

recovered and from the second godown, some solutions of rose water, liquid glucose etc. with suspected Ketamine v/eighing around 200 KG",,

dissolved therein were recovered, with drums of refined glycerine, Ethyle Acetate etc.",,

During the tests conducted by the CRCL, New Delhi, subsequently, the samples taken out of the above seizure effected from the Airport,",,

Cargo Complex have been found positive for Ketamine Hydrochloride, the samples taken from the white crystalline powder recovered from",,

the two bags from the residence of applicant/accused at Man Sarovar Garden have been found positive for Ephedrine Hydrochloride and,,

Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, the samples taken from the first godown of the applicant/accused have also been found positive for",,

Ephedrine Hydrochloride and the samples taken from the above rose water solutions etc. found in the second godown of the,,

applicant/accused have also been found positive for Ketamine Hydrochloride.,,

Ketamine Hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance presently included with the name of Ketamine at serial number 110A of the,,

Schedule of the NDPS Act, Ephedrine Hydrochloride and Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride are both declared to be “controlled",,

substances"" in terms of Section 9A of the NDPS Act, the possession or dealings etc. in respect of which is made punishable by Section 25A of",,

the NDPS Act. The possession and dealings etc. in manufactured narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances etc are punishable U/S 21 of,,

the NDPS Act, Section 23 of the said Act deals with the illegal import or export etc. of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc and",,

Section 28 of the Act makes punishable any attempts to commit an offence under the said Act or to cause such offence to be committed.,,

During investigation, the statements of both accused U/S 67 of the NDPS Act were also- recorded by the DRI officers and in these",,

statements it is alleged to have transpired that apart from the above consignment of 151.980 KG of Ketamine intercepted at the above,,

airport, previously also they both had sent some drug consignments out or India, which were concealed in the consignments declared as to",,

be of Hina and Chaat Masala etc. and the above consignments were sent in the names of some fake firms/companies and they both had,,

earlier exported about 1000 KG of contraband substances out of India. As per the above statements, all the above previous consignments",,

were sent by the applicant/accused and the accused Atul Aggarwal was. given the task of packing and concealment etc. of the above drugs,,

in the said consignments and for this job he was being paid by the applicant/accused @ 2.5/3 lacs for each consignment of about 100 KG. In,,

pursuance of the disclosures made by them m their above statements and in the light of the information conveyed to the Canadian,,

Authorities by the DRI officers from Delhi, a consignment of 300 KG of Ketamine concealed in a consignment declared to be of Chaat",,

Masala was also intercepted at the premises of an airport at Canada by the Canadian Authorities.,,

The allegations in the complaint and the documents filed alongwith the same prima facie show that the above Ketamine Hydrochloride,,

weighing 151.980 Kg was being attempted to be exported or being transshipped out of India by the accused Paramjeet Singh Gulati and,,

Atul Aggarwal, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. The subsequent recovery of 200 Kg of Ketamine Hydrochloride in dissolved form",,

from the second godown in Mundka village of the accused Paramjeet Singh Gulati, the recovery of 25.5 Gms of Ephedrine Hydrochloride",,

from the residential premises of accused Paramjeet Singh Gulati at Mansarovar Garden and further recovery of 215 Gms of the same,,

substance from his office/godown premises in Bali Nagar and also the recovery of 24.5 Gms of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride from his,,

above residential premises at Mansarovar Garden are also to be viewed with reference to the above criminal conspiracy, in pursuance of",,

which the above prohibited substances were being possessed by the accused Paramjeet Singh Gulati.â€​,,

Recovery,What was recovered,"W hy section 37, NDPS no

attracted

Residential premises at G48, Near

Mansarovar Garden, Nea

Overhead Tank, New Delh

(Residence of the Applicant).","White colored crystalline Powder

rstated to be ketamine packed in

itwo different pouches marked as

“EPH†25.5 grams gross

weight and PSE (24.5 grams gross

weight) (Page 33)","E p h e d r i n e Hydrochloride

Pseudoephedrine are controlled

substance and very small recovery

even if assumed without admitting

that it was recovered from the

applicant, does not attract the bar

of Section-37. (Reliance placed on

Niranjan Jayantilal Shah Vs. DR

,,"2013 SCC online Delhi 4608- Copy

of the judgement is annexed

herewith)

G-41 (basement) Bali Nagar, New

Delhi, (Godown)","215 grams of white coloured

crystalline powder suspected to be

Ketamine","It was wrongly suspected to be

Ketamine, test sample

demonstrated that it was

Ephedrine Hydrochloride (Page

33, 37, 50 of the petition)which is a

controlled substance and very

small recovery even if assumed

without admitting that it was

recovered from the applicant, does

not attract the bar of section 37 of

NDPS. (See Niranjan Jayantila

Shah v. DRI 2013 SCC Onlin

Delhi 4608)

Godown situated at Khasra

number 755/2/1, Mundka Vilage,

Delhi.","200 Kgs Ketamine dissolved in

solution of rose water, liquid

glucose, etc..","(i) During the search at Bali Nagar

property, a rent agreement for

Mundka property was allegedly

found. The rent agreement was

between Neetu Vats d/o Anoop

Singh with one Paramjit Singh s/o

Gurjeet Singh (Chotu)r/o House

N o . 4/3 Shivalik Apartments,

Jallandhar, Punjab whereas the

Applicant is Paramjit Singh, son of

Late Gurbaksh Singh, a resident o

Delhi. (See Page 199 of the

Petition r/w 333 of Additional

Documents). (ii) Applicant though

in custody of DRI was not taken

to Mundka only coaccused Atul

Aggarwal was taken (Page 72 of

Additional Documents). This was

pleaded in Bail at Page 79. (iii)

Discrepancies in Test Samples,

which entitles the applicant not just

to bail but also an acquittal.

(detailed hereinbelow) (iv)

Possession of Mundka godown

was with namesake of the

Applicant called Chotu @

Paramjit. Chotu’s name

figures throughout- See Complaint

(Page 36 & 42), Charge (Page

82), Statement of PW-1 Mano

Thakur (Page 124), Statement o

PW-32 (Page 197, 198, 205 &

207). Ld. Trial Court wrongly

records that Landlord introduced

Chotu (Page 78). Rent Agreemen

of Mundka is in name of Chotu but

he has not been arrested so far

(Page 53).

Recovery at the IGI Airport, New

Delhi, and the shipment concerning

supplementary complaint","151.980 Kgs of Ketamine in the

export consignment attempted to

be exported by M/s. Sagar Impex.","Not even single evidence against

the applicant, all evidence against

the coaccused Atul Aggarwal.

1 . Co-accused Atul Aggarwal

admits to forging documents of

Sagar Impex (See Page 43 of

Petition);

2 . Parvez Ansari names Atul

Aggarwal (See Page 49 of the

Petition);

3 . Raju Gupta names Atu

Aggarwal, connects Atul to M/s.

Sagar Impex, all payments made

by Atul (See Page 50 & 51 of the

Petition).

summoned on 19.07.2012 and was not detained illegally and it was only after his statement on 19.07.2012 and 20.07.2012 after his admission of the,,

commission of the crime that he was arrested on 20.07.2012, inter alia the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has always been provided the",,

best treatment at AIIMS and that there is no delay also in conducting of the trial.,,

Through the rejoinder that has been submitted to the written submissions of the respondent, the petitioner has submitted that though the matter was",,

listed on day to day basis for the trial in April 2019, only 37 witnesses had been examined out of the cited 83 witnesses. The petitioner has further",,

submitted that the petitioner was never in conscious possession of any of the contraband substances and that there has never been any connivance,,

between him and the co-accused Atul Agarwal and the entire prosecution version is based on assumptions and presumptions with no link against the,,

petitioner nor with their being any direct or indirect link between the petitioner and the recoveries effected, if any.",,

The petitioner has also submitted that in relation to the alleged 200 kgs of Ketamine dissolved in rose water seized on 19.07.2012 from the godown,,

on the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the same, which godown was in the conscious possession of one",,

Chhotu who had run away from the custody of the respondent from the search of this godown as also so indicated by the statement of the landlord,,

Jaspal Singh and the panchnama prepared. Inter alia the petitioner has submitted that the statements that have been recorded of Sh. Arunesh Pagore,,

and Parvez Ansari only indicate the involvement of the co-accused Atul Agarwal and do not incriminate the present petitioner who has been made a,,

scapegoat.,,

Reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the statement of Sh. Parvez Ansari dated 28.07.2012 made by the DRI vide which he,,

inter alia stated to the effect:-,,

“On being asked I state that I have filed S/Bill no 9880760 dated 17.01.2000 of M/s Sagar Impex 2533 -18 Second Floor Gali,,

Laltanwali Naya Bazar, New Delhi-110006. Declare to export of Mehandi, Vanity Box, Bangles etc. To consignee M/s Khairol Nizam,",,

Hasim No. 3-5-6, Flat Medan, Tengku Jelutong11600 Geogeoton, Penang, Malaysia by Singapore Air License on 19.07.2012. I came to",,

know that above said shipment was intercepted by DRI officers and some contraband drugs concealed in the said shipment have been,,

seized.,,

On being asked I state that the said consignment was send tome by one Mr. Atul Kumar Aggarwal alongwith the documents related to the,,

said export consignment that is in voice packaging list and fumigation certificate which I here produced before you duly signed by me.,,

On being asked I state that Mr. Atul Aggrwal was introduced to me by one of my client Sh. Shiraj Walia @ Bittu who is engaged in the,,

business of freight forwarding in the name of M/s Air Con Cargo, Laxmi Nagar, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92. Mr.Bittu told me during the month",,

of Feb-March-2012 that Mr.Atul Aggarwal will be approaching me for clearance of his export consignment.,,

On being asked I state that prior to the consignment for export pertaining to S/Bill no. 9880760 dated 17.07.2012 of M/s Sagar Impex I had,,

billed two more S/bills in respect of export consignment of Sh. Atul Aggawal in the name of M/s Seventy Four Exim S/Bill No. 8949561,",,

Invoice No.0064/2012 dated 18.05.2012 and M/s Marshneil Garment Export S/Bill No. 885802 invoice No. 0058/2012 dated 11.05.2012.,,

On being asked I state that I never verified the details of the exporter for whom I had filled and processed export documents for clearance,,

with customs.,,

Today I have been shown statement dated 20.07.2012 of Mr.Atul Kumar Aggarwal I have gone through the same and in token of agreeing,,

with the contents of the same I put my dated signature on the last page of the statement.,,

Today I have been shown the statement of Sh. Arunesh Pagore recorded on 23.07.2012 I have gone through the same and I agree to the,,

contents and facts mentioned therein. I have put my dated signature on the last page of the statement in token of acceptance of the facts,,

mentioned therein.â€​,,

Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the statement of Sh. Arunesh Pagore dated 23.07.2012 recorded by the DRI to contend,,

that there is not a whisper in the said statement against the present petitioner.,,

Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on a catena of verdicts, viz.:-",,

(i) “UOI Versus JAROOPARAMâ€​ 2018 (4) SCC 334,,

(ii) “NIRANJAN JAYANTILAL SHAH Versus DRIâ€​ 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4608,,

(iii) “TOOFAN SINGH Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADUâ€​ 2013 (16) SCC 31,,

(iv) “SURINDER KHANNA Versus DRIâ€​ 2018 (8) SCC 271,,

(v) “RAJESH SHARMA Versus DRIâ€​ 2013 SCC ONLINE DELHI 12372,,

(vi) “MOHD. RAMZAN Versus STATEâ€​ (2005) 82 DRJ 435,,

(vii) “RAJESH JAGDAMBA AWASTHI Versus STATE OF GOAâ€​ (2005) 9 SCC 773,,

which reliance however is wholly misplaced in view of the factum that the facts thereof are not in pari materia with the facts of the instant case and,,

are wholly distinguishable.,,

It is essential to observe that in Bail Appl. No.2149/2013 in “Atul Aggarwal Vs. DRIâ€, a verdict of this Court dated 30.06.2015 in relation to",,

the co-accused in the instant case itself, the bail application of that co-accused has been rejected.",,

As regards the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had retracted from the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS,,

Act, 1985 on 04.12.2017, it is essential to observe that vide the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CRL.A. No.1897/2019 in “Sujit Tiwari",,

Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.â€​ dated 28.01.2020 vide paragraph 9 has observed to the effect:-,,

“9. We have gone through the statement made by the appellantunder Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Without going into thequestion whether,,

the statement is admissible or not, as thismatter has been referred to a larger bench, we are, for thepurpose of this case, taking the statement",,

into consideration even though the appellant has resiled from the same.â€​,",,

in as much as, the aspect of the admissibility of the statement in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been referred to a larger",,

bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, presently, the statement of the petitioner in accordance with Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in",,

terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 which reads to the effect:-",,

“67. Power to call for information, etc.â€"Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government",,

or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provisions of this Act,â€"",,

(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of,,

this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;,,

(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;,,

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​,",,

is taken into account despite the petitioner having retracted from the same on 04.12.2017.,,

On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, without any observations on the merits or demerits of the trial",,

in progress, it is essential to observe that even if the recoveries in relation to 25.5 gms of Ephedrine Hydrochloride; and 24.5 gms of Psedoephedrine",,

Hydrochloride and 215 gms of Ketamine demonstrated to be Ephedrine Hydrochloride, may not be falling within any specified commercial quantity to",,

attract the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, it cannot be overlooked that the statement of the landlord Sh. Jaspal Singh PW-32 of the godown",,

situated at Khasra No.755/2/1, Village Mundka, New Delhi prima facie indicates that he identifies the petitioner as being the person to whom he had",,

given the basement on rent and that the person named Chhotu stated to be claimed by the petitioner to be the person in possession of the basement,",,

was stated by Sh. Jaspal Singh in his testimony dated 12.04.2019 as being the person who used to work for the petitioner and PW-32 has also testified,,

to seizure of the sum of Rs.3-3.50 lakhs from the drawer of the table on which he stated the petitioner used to sit and has testified also to the recovery,,

of a polythene packet containing white powder from the same and thus, the contention at this stage on behalf of the petitioner that the documents in",,

relation to lease of the property were executed between one Neetu Vats. d/o Sh. Anoop Singh with one Paramjit Singh s/o Sh. Gurjit Singh, the person",,

named Chhotu who was alleged to be an employee of the petitioner, presently does not aid the petitioner, in as much as, the documents in the email in",,

relation to the shipment effected in the name of M/s Sagar Impex, a fictitious sum are from the email ID of the petitioner and apart from the same, the",,

statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 made by the petitioner is self inculpatory and presently has to be accepted to be correct.",,

In the circumstances, in as much as, the recovery of Ketamine is of a commercial quantity allegedly attempted to be exported by the petitioner in",,

association of the co-accused persons with also commercial quantity of Ketamine dissolved in solutions of rose water and liquid glucose having been,,

allegedly recovered from the premises i.e. godown at Khasra No.755/2/1, Village Mundka, New Delhi which was testified by the landlord to have",,

been rented out to the petitioner herein, presently, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is not guilty of the commission of any offence punishable",,

under the NDPS Act, 1985 in relation to which the charges had been framed against him vide order dated 05.11.2014 with additional charges having",,

also been framed against the petitioner subsequently.,,

In the circumstances, there is no merit in the prayer made by the applicant vide the present application seeking release on bail despite the factum",,

that the petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2012. The application is thus, declined.",,