India
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, while granting bail, took note of the fact that no narcotics recovery was made from the accused during the investigation. The court also observed that the charges against the accused were primarily under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The court’s order stated, “In the present case, there was no recovery from the possession of the present accused, Parvez Kutaisi. The allegation against him is only under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.”
Furthermore, the court considered the reply filed by the Investigating Officer (IO), which revealed that co-accused individuals named Nasir and Sajid had been found in possession of 315 kilograms of Ganja (cannabis). The IO’s report indicated that these co-accused had made phone calls to the applicant/accused, as revealed by Call Detail Records (CDR). However, the court noted the absence of any transcripts of conversations between the applicant and the co-accused, as well as the absence of any financial transactions involving the applicant according to the IO’s findings.
Given these circumstances, the court expressed concerns about the lengthy duration of the trial, stating, “The charge sheet has been filed. The trial will take a long time.”
Taking into consideration the material available against the applicant/accused, and despite the constraints outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court decided to grant bail to Parvez Kutaisi. The order was issued on September 26.
The court’s bail order requires the accused Parvez Kuraisi to furnish a personal bond amounting to Rs 40,000 along with one surety in the same amount.
The defence counsel argued on behalf of the applicant/accused, emphasizing that the accused had voluntarily surrendered before the court on December 12, 2022. Following his surrender, he was formally arrested in the case. The defence maintained that the accused had been falsely implicated solely based on disclosure statements made by other accused individuals, with no incriminating evidence recovered from his possession. It was further highlighted that the accused had a clean record, was an unmarried young man operating a grocery shop to support his family, and had no connections to the present case.
However, the bail application faced opposition from the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), who contended that during the investigation, co-accused Nasir and Sajid had explicitly disclosed their involvement. They claimed that they had received a consignment of 315 kilograms of cannabis (Ganja) from an individual named Parvez in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. Parvez had allegedly instructed them to deliver the consignment to a recipient named Parmod and other parties upon their arrival at Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi. The APP argued that Parvez had assured the co-accused that he would facilitate their connection with the consignee Parmod and others for the safe delivery of the narcotics.
English
Gujarati
Hindi
Kannada
Malayalam
Marathi
Punjabi
Tamil
Telugu
