Rocky Kumar vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And Others

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J

The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to lockdown imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heard Mr. Satyendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General (hereinafter referred to as the 'ASG') for the Union of India and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with D.R.I. (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 11 of 2019 dated 26.11.2019 instituted under Sections 20/22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner is accused of travelling with 729.390 Kgs. of ganja which was found hidden in the truck of which he was the khalasi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was unaware of the contents of the packets and had taken the job at the request of a co-villager. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent and is in custody since 27.11.2019.

Learned ASG and learned APP submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the huge quantity of narcotics being loaded on the truck of which he was khalasi. It was submitted that in the statement to the officials which is admissible as evidence in law, he has clearly stated that in his presence the ganja was loaded on the truck. It was further submitted that most importantly, it was on the information provided by the petitioner with regard to how the ganja was put inside the truck, the same was discovered. It was submitted that 20 Kgs. of ganja is commercial quantity and in the present case huge amount of 729.390 Kgs. gross and 707.200 Kgs. net of ganga being recovered is clearly a big crime which is also a crime against the society at large as it is an intoxicant which is harmful in consumption and leads to various connected crimes.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.