- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 20 August 2018
- Bench
- Mukta Gupta
- Case no.
- BAIL APPLN. 503/2018
Judgment
Order dasti.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 20, 2018 mamta
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10th August, 2018 Decided on: 20th August, 2018 + BAIL APPLN. 2343/2017 IKECHUKWU CHUKWUBUIKEM STANLEY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vikas Gautam, Advocate versus NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate + BAIL APPLN. 503/2018 ANAND KUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.K.G.Sharma and Mr.R.K.Goel, Advocates versus NAROTIC CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. By these two petitions, the petitioners seek bail in complaint case No.SC/225/17 titled as NCB Vs. Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley & Ors. pending in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, at Patiala House. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley states that from the facts even on the face of the prosecution case, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the narcotics drugs. No recovery has been made at the instance of the petitioner, further the parcel was given to the petitioner by the co-accused to be booked for Spain. He further states that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2015) 6 SCC 222 Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and a decision of this Court reported as 2005 (3) JCC (Narcotic) 220 Kamaljeet Singh Vs. H.K.Pandey, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail pending trial. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Anand Kumar Thakur states that the petitioner is running a courier agency and only to facilitate its customer, he provided the ID of his staff which cannot in any way be treated as conscious possession of the contraband. There is no previous involvement of the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated. 4. As per the complaint filed by the respondent, the case of the prosecution is that on 28th January, 2017, a secret information was received from DHL, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi that one parcel booked under airway bill No.5112788656 destined for Spain is lying there and is suspicious. On examination of the parcel, it was found containing 575 grams of heroin concealed in the shock absorber (auto parts). During inquiry, ID documents were looked into and it was found that the courier company i.e. DTDC Courier Company was owned by petitioner Anand Kumar Thakur who disclosed that the parcel in question was booked by Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley on the basis of aadhar card of one Munna Ansari and that ID documents of his staff were affixed with the parcel in question on the instructions of Anand Kumar Thakur. 5. Thereafter, petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley was intercepted and was questioned as to who disclosed that the parcel was given to him by co-accused Edwin Emeka Igbokwe whereafter Edwin was intercepted and his statement was also recorded. Search of house of Edwin was also conducted where similar type of shock absorbers were found which were used for concealing the recovered heroin in the parcel in question, besides the packing box and other incriminating items. 6. As per the complaint and the status report, petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley was earlier also arrested and convicted in FIR No.68/2008 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act at PS Special Cell, New Delhi whereafter he had entered India with another name and committed the present offence. As per the complaint, petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley was earlier arrested in the name of Stanely Chubuki. 7. The plea of learned counsel for petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the contraband cannot be accepted for the reason Edwin who gave the parcel to petitioner Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley was in Delhi only and was thus not required to use Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley for the purposes of sending the parcel. Even as per his statement on 24th January, 2017 when the booking of the parcel was not showing on
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.