JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. These three bail applications are taken up together.
2. The applicants are Jagbir Singh, Sanjay Kakkar and Mrs. Tahira Sayed. The case of the prosecution is that one Syed Abu Ala along with his family, i.e. his wife Mrs. Tahira Sayed and son Sayed Abu Sualeh were engaged in the activity of manufacturing heroin. Another accused Mohd. Altaf who was also involved in these activities was his employee. It is the further case of the prosecution that the raw-materials/Chemicals for the manufacture of heroin which included Acetic Anhydride were supplied to these accused by one Rajinder who in turn brought these supplies from co-accused Sanjay Kakkar, who, in turn, got the same from co-accused Jagbir and who in turn ultimately got his supplies from one Ghanshyam. On the basis of secret information, the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau conducted raids at the residential premises of the main accused Abu Ala at A-263, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. But, nothing was recovered from these premises. Raids were also conducted at the office premises at Zenith Pharma and nothing was recovered there from. However, at the time of conducting these raids, the accused Abu Sualeh (son of main accused Abu Ala) indicated that they had another residential premises in old Delhi and upon this information a further raid was conducted in the premises at old Delhi at Mohalla Kishanganj and it is alleged that approximately 32 Kg of heroin were recovered along with the appliances required for the manufacturing of heroin. One Mohd. Altaf was found in those premises and he disclosed that he was an employee of the said accused Syed Abu Ala.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are two sets of allegations in the prosecution case. One set of allegations is with regard to the main accused Syed Abu Ala and his family and employee with regard to the manufacture and storage of heroin. The other set of allegations is with regard to Rajinder, Sanjay Kakkar, Jagbir and Ghanshyam for having made supplies of raw materials, Chemicals including Acetic Anhydride. Insofar as the first set of allegations is concerned, Mr Harjinder Singh, who appeared for Tahira Sayed, submitted that her case stands on the same footing as that of her son Sayed Abu Sualeh and he had been granted bail by an order of this Court on 6th April, 2004. The learned counsel for the prosecution, however, submitted that there is a slight difference in the case against the said accused Syed Abu Sualeh and Tahira Sayed inasmuch as the latter is the owner of the premises from which the said recoveries were made. However, it does appear that apart from this fact of ownership, there is no other distinguishing feature to separate the case against the accused Syed Abu Sualeh and Tahira Sayed. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to treat the same at par and, therefore, Mrs. Tahira would become entitled to bail.
4. Insofar as the accused Sanjay Kakkar and Jagbir are concerned, their learned counsel Mr Sanjiv Kumar and Mr S.S. Das (respectively) submitted that they are the middle links in the supply chain of which accused Ghanshyam and accused Rajinder form the beginning and end of the chain. Both Rajinder and Ghanshyam have already been enlarged on bail by orders dated 25th September, 2001 (Rajinder) and 24th April, 2002 respectively. The case against Jagbir is that he supplied Acetic Anhydride to Sanjay Kakkar who supplied the same to Rajinder and these supplies were initiated by Ghanshyam. In addition 70 Litters of Acetic Anhydride are said to have been recovered from him and 55 Kgs. of the said item were recovered from Sanjay Kakkar. Acetic Anhydride is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance. However, it is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 9A read with Section 25A of the NDPS Act. As such, Section 37 of the Act would also not be attracted. The learned counsel for the prosecution, however, argued that the case of Sanjay Kakkar and Jagbir are different inasmuch as recoveries are said to have been made from these accused whereas in the cases of Rajinder and Ghanshyam, no recoveries were affected.
5. Keeping in mind the fact that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the cases of Sanjay Kakkar and Jagbir and that they were only the middle links in the supply chain and that the first (Ghanshyam)and last (Rajinder) links have already been granted bail, there is no reason why these accused should not also be released on bail.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs 2,00,000/- each with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to the further condition that they shall not leave the National Capital Region without the permission of the Court.
The applications stand disposed of.
8. dusty.