Allowed

Parichay Arora v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Delhi HC10 Dec 2024BAIL APPLN./1765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, who was an undertrial accused in an NDPS case involving alleged Telegram group administration and recovery of drugs from a shared room. The court held that bail allegations relied heavily on co-accused statements and that the contraband quantity was not commercial. Due to over three years of custody and pending trial, bail was allowed wi

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioner in case No. VIII/46/DZU/2021 under NDPS Act sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(A)/20(b)(ii)(B)/21(b)/22(c)/23/29 subject to personal bond, contact details submission, passp

Parichay Arora Vs Narcotics Control Bureau — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶4

PARICHAY ARORA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikram Hegde and Mr. Chitwan Sharma, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Harssh Bhatia, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.12.2024

¶12

By way of the present petition filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner seeks regular bail in case No. VIII/46/DZU/2021 registered under sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(A)/20(b)(ii)(B)/21(b)/22(c)/23/29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) registered at P.S.: NCB, DZU, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

¶13

Notice on this petition was issued on 17.05.2024.

¶14

Nominal roll dated 23.07.2024 has also been received from the Jail Superintendent.

¶15

The petitioner has filed on record written submissions dated 25.07.2024. Mr. Arun Khatri, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the NCB has handed-up a short synopsis of their submissions dated 10.12.2024, which are taken on record.

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2024 at 12:43:12

¶19

Mr. Vikram Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the allegations against the petitioner in the subject FIR proceed on two basis : first , that the petitioner is one of the administrators of a Telegram group called ‘The Orient Express’ and through that group the petitioner has dealt in contraband; and second , that certain contraband was recovered from a room which was occupied by the petitioner alongwith co-accused Vishal Chaturvedi.

¶20

Mr. Hegde points-out, that insofar as the allegation that the petitioner is one of the administrators of the said Telegram group is concerned, that allegation is based on statements of some co-accused persons recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act; and on point of fact, the cellphone recovered from the applicant does not indicate his status as ‘administrator’ of that group. It is pointed-out that the administrator of that Telegram group functions under an ID called ‘ PPtheplug ’.

¶21

Mr. Hegde argues, that it has also come through in the course of investigation that the said Telegram group was started by one Mohd. Aslam Chico; and it is the petitioner’s contention the applicant was participating in the said Telegram group only in connection with the sale and purchase of shares on the stock-market and for certain transactions in ‘bitcoin’. It is submitted that if, as alleged by the NCB, some other persons on the said Telegram group were engaging in trading in contraband, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of those other members of the group.

¶22

Furthermore, Mr. Hegde argues, that insofar as the other allegation against the petitioner, viz . that some contraband was recovered from Room No. 5 of Hotel Kapoor Inn, near LPU, Punjab on 10.10.2021 is

¶23

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 9

¶25

¶26

concerned, admittedly that room was not in the sole use or occupation of the petitioner, but was being shared by the petitioner with another co-accused Vishal Chaturvedi. Therefore, the alleged recovery of contraband from that room cannot be imputed to the petitioner nor can it be said that the petitioner was in possession of such contraband.

¶27

It is submitted, that in any event the contraband allegedly recovered from the room was not ‘commercial quantity’ of any of the drugs allegedly seized as per the Schedule to the NDPS Act, since the panchnama says that 09 grams of charas , 01 gram of ganja , 16 tablets of alprazolam , 12 tablets of spasmoproxyron and 1/2 an ecstasy tablet were recovered. It is argued that therefore, the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

¶28

Mr. Hegde further argues, that the allegedly seized contraband was not ‘sampled’ as per the mandate of section 52-A of the NDPS Act; and therefore, may not be admissible in evidence at all.

¶29

Mr. Hegde submits that the NCB also alleges that there is a connection between the petitioner and another co-accused, viz. Suvashish Roy, and that therefore the recovery of 16 grams of ecstasy from Suvashish Roy is also attributable to the petitioner, which is a wholly unsustainable position. Counsel submits, that apart from the fact that 16 grams of ecstasy is also not ‘commercial quantity’, there are no CDRs, WhatsApp chats or any financial transactions between the petitioner and the said Suvashish Roy to justify the allegation of there being any connection between the two; and that allegation of the NCB is yet again premised only on the statement of Suvashish Roy recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act.

¶30

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶31

Page 3 of 9

¶32

¶33

Mr. Hegde further argues, that it will be appreciated that the financial transactions between the petitioner and co-accused Mohd. Aslam Chico, which were only towards stock-market investments and bitcoin trading, would show that the amounts involved are meagre and are not suggestive of drug related transactions.

¶34

In this backdrop, Mr. Hegde points-out, that 11 of the 15 persons accused in the matter have already been released on bail, including bail having been granted by Co-ordinate Benches of this court to coaccused Naman Sharma vide judgment dated 04.03.2022 in BAIL APPLN. No. 3673/2021; to Mohd. Aslam Chico vide judgment dated 18.09.2023 in BAIL APPLN. No. 148/2022; as well as to Shradha Surana vide judgement dated 20.05.2024 passed in BAIL APPLN. No. 2397/2023; but the petitioner continues to be in custody. It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered judicial custody of more than 03 years, while charges are yet to be framed in the matter in which the NCB has cited 49 witnesses; and evidently trial in the matter will take a long time; and the petitioner therefore deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.

¶35

On the other hand, Mr. Khatri, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the NCB submits, that admittedly the petitioner is a member of the Telegram group ‘The Orient Express’, of which he was one of the administrators known by the name of ‘ PPtheplug ’ and there is sufficient evidence on record to show the petitioner’s involvement in the drug business.

¶36

Mr. Khatri argues, that several photographs of psychotropic substances, parcel receipts, WhatsApp chats and screenshots of

¶37

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶38

Page 4 of 9

¶39

¶40

Telegram chats that have been found on the cellphone that was seized from the petitioner, which are all incriminating of the petitioner.

¶41

Learned counsel for the NCB further submits, that the petitioner was sharing a room with co-accused Vishal Chaturvedi, who is believed to have been harbouring the petitioner and was assisting him in carryingout drug trafficking activities.

¶42

Mr. Khatri submits, that the petitioner is in fact believed to be the ‘main conspirator’, since several of the accused persons have named him as the co-founder/admin of the said Telegram group; and apart therefrom, contraband seized from the house of co-accused Suvashish Roy is also stated to belong to the petitioner.

¶43

Mr. Khatri submits, that the petitioner was intercepted near Jalandhar, Punjab, whereupon he disclosed that some contraband was kept in his hostel room, which is how the contraband was recovered from Room No. 5 at Hotel Kapoor Inn as referred to above.

¶44

Mr. Khatri points-out that the petitioner is also implicated in another similar case bearing case No. VIII/46/DZU/2021 registered under sections 8(c)/20/22/29 of the NDPS Act, in which commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered.

¶45

Upon a conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, the considerations that prevail with the court at this stage are the following :

¶46

20.1. Though the petitioner is stated to be one of the administrators of the Telegram group ‘The Orient Express’, it appears that the cellphone recovered from the petitioner does not indicate his status as the administrator; and he is sought to be cited as the

¶47

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶48

Page 5 of 9

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2024 at 12:43:12

¶51

administrator based on an ID called ‘ PPtheplug ’; but whether or not the petitioner was functioning under that ID remains to be proved in the course of trial;

¶52

20.2. Furthermore, it seems to be the accepted position that the petitioner was participating in the said Telegram group to also conduct transactions relating to trading in shares as well as bitcoin, which had nothing to do with trading in contraband;

¶53

20.3. The allegation that the petitioner was trading in contraband on the said Telegram group is premised on statements of coaccused persons recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, which statements cannot be read against the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu¹ ;

¶54

20.4. Furthermore, it is also the NCB's own case that the contraband, the recovery of which is being imputed to the petitioner, was recovered from a room in Hotel Kapur Inn, which room was admittedly not in the exclusive possession or occupation of the petitioner since he was sharing it with another co-accused, viz. Vishal Chaturvedi;

¶55

20.5. The contraband allegedly recovered from the said room is of ‘intermediate’ and not of ‘commercial quantity’; and therefore, the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act do not get triggered;

¶56

20.6. Furthermore, as per Nominal Roll dated 23.07.2024 received from the District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh,

¶57

1 (2021) 4 SCC 1

¶58

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶59

Page 6 of 9

¶60

¶61

where the petitioner is presently housed, shows that he has suffered custody for more than 03 years as an undertrial; and though his jail conduct is recorded as ‘not good’, he has already been awarded punishment for the jail infractions;

¶62

20.7. Insofar as the other case registered against the petitioner bearing case No. VIII/56/DZU/21 is concerned, the petitioner is stated to be on bail in that case; and

¶63

20.8. Besides, it cannot be ignored that trial in the matter is yet to commence, since charges have not yet been framed; and since the NCB have cited 49 prosecution witnesses, the trial will take a long time to conclude.

¶64

In view of the above, and in-line with the mandate of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ,² Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha ,³ and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh⁴ , this court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner – Parichay Arora @ PP the Plug s/o Sanjeev Arora – regular bail in case No. VIII/46/DZU/2021 under sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(A)/20(b)(ii)(B)/21(b)/22(c)/23/29 of the NDPS Act registered at P.S.: NCB, DZU, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, subject to the following conditions :

¶65

21.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with 02 sureties in the like

¶66

2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352

¶67

3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109

¶68

4 2024 INSC 534

¶69

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2024

¶70

Page 7 of 9

¶71

This is a digitally signed order.

¶72

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/12/2024 at 12:43:12

¶73

amount from the family members, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

¶74

21.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

¶75

21.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial court;

¶76

21.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

¶77

21.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing;

¶78

Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular bail.

¶79