Hussain v. State

: Mr. Sahil Jain, Ms. Vidhi Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for DRI assisted by Mr. Jay Upadhyay, Mr. Sourabh Jain and Mr. Himanshu Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 13/02/2025 Order

1. The instant VIII bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. DRI/DZU/JRU/19/INT-10/2019 registered at DRI Regional Unit, Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 22-C, 23-C, 25, 27-A and 29 read with 2, 8-C, 9(1-A) and 65-A & 66 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. It is contended that the VII bail application of the accused- petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2024, thereafter, the accused-petitioner challenged it before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 23.08.2024, requested the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner was given liberty to [2025:RJ-JP:6473] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1791/2025] approach this Court if the trial gets unduly delayed or there is a change in circumstances. It is also contended that the accused- petitioner was arrested on 23.10.2019 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since then. The accused-petitioner has suffered almost 1/3 of the punishment of the maximum punishment provided under Section 8/27-A of the NDPS Act. It is also contended that out of 37 witnesses, the prosecution has examined only 30 witnesses till now and further trial of the case may take considerable time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No(s). 943 of 2023, dated March 28, 2023. It is also contended that the Co-ordinate Bench has also enlarged the persons on bail on account of inordinate delay. It is also contended that the recovery memo witnesses PW-7 Ronak Bansal and PW-15 Amit Kumar have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. It is also contended that even the statement of departmental witness PW-6 Pramod Kumar Mandawat, is also not believable; in his cross-examination, he has admitted that during proceeding, no bills, documents etc., were recovered, showing the fact that the said contraband articles were received from foreign country or they were sent out of India, therefore, on the above grounds, the VIII bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

4. Learned Senior Standing counsel has vehemently opposed the VIII bail application of the accused-petitioner and contended [2025:RJ-JP:6473] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-1791/2025] that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.08.2024, requested the Trial Court to expedite the trial, after that order, within a span of almost 5 months, 18 witnesses have been examined. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that in case the trial gets unduly delay or there is change in circumstances the petitioner shall be entitled to file a fresh application for grant of bail. The fact shows that out of total 37 witnesses, 30 witnesses have already been examined. Thus, it cannot be said that after the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there has been inordinate delay in the trial. It is also contended that the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case as in that case the custody period was of almost 8 years. Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the judgment passed by larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613.

5. It is also contended that even the conduct of the petitioner is dubious, the prosecution witness PW-8 Haseen Ahmed in his examination-in-chief has stated that the relative of the petitioner tried to approach him and told him not to identify the accused- petitioner in the Court. This conduct of the petitioner itself shows that if the petitioner is released on bail then there is every chance to temper with the evidences, therefore, the VIII bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

7. Heard and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court in unequivocal terms, requested the Trial Court to expedite the trial. [2025:RJ-JP:6473] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1791/2025] The status of the trial as placed by learned counsel for the respondent explicitly shows that after the passing of the order, Trial Court has recorded as many as 18 witnesses. This itself shows that the Trial Court is making all endeavour to complete the trial expeditiously and it cannot be said that the trial is unduly delayed. As far as change in circumstances is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the statement of two recovery memo witnesses, who have been declared hostile and not supported the prosecution story. However, apart from these two witnesses, there are other witnesses on which the prosecution case rests, therefore, solely on the grounds that two witnesses have not supported the prosecution story, the bail to the petitioner cannot be granted as the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and the accused-petitioner has failed to show that he is not guilty of the offence. There are ample evidence available on record, prima facie showing the involvement of the accused-petitioner in the alleged offence.

8. It would not be apposite for the Court to comment upon the merits, when the matter itself at its fag end. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613, categorically held that the length of period of custody, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, and trial has commenced, are not consideration that can be treated as persuasive, to grant the relief to the accused-petitioner under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:6473] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-1791/2025]

9. Hence, the VIII bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. Keshav/302 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J