hemp, cannabis, plant-7212762.jpg

Report by Shreya Gupta

The petitioner in this case of LAL VEDANT NATH SHAH DEO v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) was Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo and the respondent was the State. The petitioner filed the application for bail under section 439 of CrPC.


The sub-inspector Gajendra Singh found Raghav Mandal a 23-year-old student of Amity University with 334 grams of charas. He disclosed about the co-accused Himanshu Singh and Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo who was also arrested. Lal Vedant was arrested under a non-bailable warrant. Raghav further disclosed that he used to get paid Rs. 500 to 1000 for every delivery. Their phones were checked and details of the Paytm account where they used to receive the payments were taken out. The Paytm account details showed that Himanshu Singh had credited a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 to Lal Vedant. The petitioner was charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of the IPC.


The advocate of the petitioner contends that no incriminating material was obtained from the petitioner on the raid in his house and that his name was earlier not mentioned in the FIR. He states that the rigours of section 37 are not applicable. He stated that section 35 and 54 of the NDPS act is not applicable since there was no conscious and intelligible possession. He stated that only on the basis of the disclosures by the co-accused the petitioner can’t be denied bail. He stated that mere phone calls among the accused and Paytm transactions can’t be the means to deny bail since the accused were college friends.


The advocate contended that a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 was credited to Lal Vedant. He contended that the petitioner tried to run away and was so charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of IPC for trying to disappear the evidence.


The court stated that the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS act are not applicable if the cannabis quantity is less than 1 kg and the quantity found in this case is only 334 grams. It further stated that since there is no evidence to show that the transaction between them took place for the recovery therefore it concludes that they were not involved in any other offence under the NDPS act except the buying and selling of drugs. The court stated that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and therefore the application for bail was passed on some terms and conditions and on the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000. The Hon’ble Supreme Court to conclude referred to the Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012.


CITATION: 2023/DHC/000885

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *