Gujarat High Court
Deepak Yashpal Mittal vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 24483 of 2024
==========================================================
DEEPAK YASHPAL MITTAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. J.M.PANCHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR K J PANCHAL(2422) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 01/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with Case No. NCB/AZU/CR-02/2022 registered with Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau Headquarter, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act").
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M.Panchal for the Applicant, learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 - NCB.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.2 - NCB.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M.Panchal appearing for the Applicant Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined has submitted that the Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 13.02.2024 whereas the offence had taken place in the month of January 2022. In the interragnum, the Applicant herein has cooperated with the investigation of the offence in question and as many as nine statements of the Applicant have been recorded by the investigating agency under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It is the case on the part of the prosecution that the contraband substance of Hydroponic Weed worth 59.370 Kgs. has been imported to India and the shipment was received at Mundra Port. There is no material whatsoever connecting the present Applicant with the offence in question. The shipment in question was called for by one RDMK Industries of Sonipat. The said RDMK Industries was owned by one Dinesh Garg and his son Rishi Garg. None of them have been arraiged as an accused in the present offence. He further submitted that the present Applicant having come to know about the fact that the contraband substance of Hydroponic Weed worth 59.370 Kgs. had been received with the consignment of scrap, he immediately had infomed the police about the same and he had also instructed the said Dinesh Garg not to accept the said consignment. The Applicant was never found in possession of any contraband substance. The premises belonging to the present Applicant had also been searched by the investigating agency and no suspicious substance was found from the premises of the present Applicant nor is there any money trail between the present Applicant and the co-accused which will indicate involvement of the Applicant in the offence in question. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail and submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Harshil D. Shukla appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - NCB has also opposed the Application. He submitted that the Applicant herein is the mastermind in commission of the present offence. The Applicant came into contact with Anirudh Singla who happens to be the cousin of Dinesh Garg, the Director of RDMK Industries. The said Anirudh Singla had introduced the Applicant and the said Dinesh Garg. Thereafter the Applicant herein had proposed Dinesh Garg to start a business of import of scrap from Canada and the said Anirudh Singla had arranged a meeting for the said purpose between the Applicant and the said Dinesh Garg. In the said meeting, the co-accused Arundeep Sood was also present and the Applicant herein had convinced Dinesh Garg to obtain the import - export code and other documents in the name of RDMK Industries so that the import of scrap material can be done. The import - export code of the RDMK Industries had been used for import of the Hydroponic Weed into India and the Applicant was to receive the said substance. He furher submitted that the statement of Dinesh Garg recorded by the investigating agency completely nails the present Applicant in the offence in question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. From the record it appears that in the month of January 2022 a shipment was received at Mundra Port. The shipment was for scrap. Since the pacakging of the said shipment was found to be damaged, the entire packaging was opened and it was found that the contraband substance of Hydroponic Weed worth 59.370 Kgs. was concealed in the cavity of the packaging. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the shipment was to be delivered to one RDMK Industries of Sonipat. It is the case Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined of the investigating agency itself that the container was allowed to go to Sonipat just to ascertain as to who would come to receive the contraband substance which was found present in the said container. However, nobody came forward to receive the stock of contraband substance at Sonipat. It is the case on the part of the Applicant and it also appears to be correct from the record that from 2022 till the arrest of the Applicant, he was summoned on several occasions by the investigating agency and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been recorded by the investigating agency on several occasions. It is the case on the part of the prosecution that the Applicant had played a pivotal role for import of the contraband substance to India. The prosecution seeks to rely upon the statement of Dinesh Garg dated 30.03.2022.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent - Agency has failed to explain as to why the Applicant came to be arrested only in the month of February 2024 though the statement of Dinesh Garg was available with the investigating agency since 30.03.2022. It is alleged against the Applicant that the Applicant had arranged a meeting between Dinesh Garg and the other co- accused and thereafter the consignment containing contraband substance was received in India. The present Applicant appears to have been arraigned in the present offence only on the basis of the suspicion. There is no concrete material connecting the present Applicant with the offence in question.
9. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 13.02.2024.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
10. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24483/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2.00 pm.
(f) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court
(h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
11. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.
12. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
13. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
14. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 53 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 21:51:27 IST 2025