w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jai Bhagwan @ Bhedha Bhai v/s N.C.B. (Narcotics Control Bureau)


Company & Directors' Information:- G S CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29199DL2002PTC118048

Company & Directors' Information:- J S CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401MH1984PTC034570

Company & Directors' Information:- BHAI & BHAI PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74120WB1963PTC025842

Company & Directors' Information:- BHAGWAN LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63011WB1952PLC020482

Company & Directors' Information:- BHAGWAN & COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999RJ1947PLC000527

    Bail Appln. No. 574 of 2020

    Decided On, 11 August 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

    For the Petitioner: Sumit, Advocate. For the Respondent: Subhash Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel, along with Shashwat Bansal, Advocate.



Judgment Text


[Hearing Held Through Video Conferencing]

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in SC No. 311/2019 under Section 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) captioned “Narcotic Control Bureau v. Bhagwan Singh and Anr.”.

2. The Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) filed a complaint alleging that on 11.01.2019, secret information was received by one of the Intelligence Officers that one person named Bhagwan Singh, aged about 35 years, would come to Anand Vihar Bus Stand New Delhi in Bus No. UK07PA1517 and would be carrying a huge quantity of charas. It is stated that the said information was reduced to writing and placed before the concerned Superintendent, NCB, Delhi Zonal Unit. He directed Sh. Deepak Atri, Intelligence Officer to constitute a team and take the necessary action and in accordance with law.

3. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, Sh. Deepak Atri constituted a team comprising himself and seven other officials. He collected the field testing kit and other items and then proceeded to Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, Delhi. He reached there at 10:30 hours on 11.01.2019. The Bus bearing no. UK07PA1517 arrived from Haldwani at 13:05 hours and one of the passengers, who matched the description of Bhagwan Singh, was accosted. The Driver and the Conductor of the said bus also joined the proceedings as independent witnesses. According to the NCB, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served to Bhagwan Singh and his rights to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer were explained to him. He did not desire to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and, accordingly, was searched at the spot. Nothing incriminating was found on his person. He was carrying a bag (pitthu bag), which was checked and one plastic bag containing three plastic pouches containing a dark brown colour substance was found. On inquiries, Bhagwan Singh informed the team that the said substance was charas. A small quantity of the same was taken out and was checked on a field testing kit and the substance tested positive for charas. Small quantities of substance drawn from the three polythene bags were tested and the tests results were positive for charas. Since the substances in the three polythene bags were similar in colour and smell, the same were collected in one transparent polythene bag and weighed. The total weight of the said contraband was found to be seven kgs.

4. NCB states that its samples were drawn and were put inside separate white colour envelopes marked as A-1 and A-2. The remaining contraband and other material was kept back in the same pitthu bag and a pullanda was prepared with a white cloth and was marked as ‘A’. The three packets – packets marked as A-1, A-2 and A – were pasted with a white paper slip bearing the signatures of the IO, the accused Bhagwan Singh and independent witnesses, and were sealed with hot wax official seal of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU DZU-5.

5. The panchnama was prepared and the possession of the case property was taken by the IO for further inquiry/investigation.

6. The summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were immediately served on Bhagwan Singh and he was directed to appear in the office of NCB, DZU forthwith to tender his voluntary statement. Similar summons were also issued to Sh. Dinesh Chand Bhandari (conductor) and Sh. Jasbir Singh (Driver), who had joined the proceedings as independent witnesses.

7. According to the NCB, summons under Section 67 were issued to Bhagwan Singh and he appeared before Sh. Deepak Atri, IO on that date (that is, on 11.01.2019) and tendered his statement. According to NCB, he admitted to the recovery of contraband from his possession and disclosed that the said contraband (charas) was to be supplied to one Bheda Bhai, whose mobile number was disclosed as 9813752042. He also disclosed that he had supplied charas to Bheda Bhai earlier as well. Sh. Bhagwan Singh was arrested on 11.01.2019 at 22:00 hours, that is, after his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. He was produced before the learned Duty Magistrate on 12.01.2019 and on an application moved by the NCB, was remanded to department’s custody for a period of three weeks. After completion of the said period, the accused Bhagwan Singh was remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged that the sample marked as A-1 was sent to the Chemical Examiner, CRCL Pusa and the test report furnished by CRCL Pusa confirmed that the substance was charas.

8. On 14.01.2019, Bhagwan Singh’s house was searched and this court is informed that nothing incriminating was found.

9. NCB officials analysed the call details of the mobile phone number used by Bhagwan Singh and those provided by him. NCB states that from perusal of the CAF of the mobile number 9813752042 – the mobile number allegedly used by Bhedha Bhai – it was revealed that the same was registered in the name of one Joravar Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh, Village Gharwal (3), Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana-131302. Thereafter, on 23.05.2019, summons were issued in the name of “Joravar Singh (Bhedha Bhai)” directing him to appear before the NCB office for recording of his statement. It is stated that pursuant to the said summons, the petitioner appeared before the concerned official on 31.05.2019. He was accompanied by one Baljit Singh. The petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. According to NCB, the said statement was dictated by the petitioner but written by the said Baljit Singh. It is contended by NCB that the said statement was voluntarily given and it incriminates the petitioner.

10. Summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were issued to the petitioner once again on 06.06.2019. Pursuant to the said summons, the petitioner appeared at the NCB office on 14.06.2019 and his statement was recorded for the second time. According to NCB, the said statement was also voluntarily given and incriminates the petitioner.

11. Apart from the alleged voluntarily statements of Bhagwan Singh and the petitioner, NCB also relies on the call detail records, which indicates that the accused Bhagwan Singh had connected (received as well as dialled) with mobile phone number 9813752042, which was at the material time allegedly used by the petitioner.

12. The complaint filed by the NCB indicates that the petitioner had acknowledged that he was referred to as Bhedha Bhai and he had also mentioned the name of one Virender. NCB states that investigation in this regard is, as of yet, inconclusive.

13. The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2019 after his statement had been recorded at the NCB office. He was produced before the concerned court on the same date and has remained in judicial custody since that date.

14. The status report indicates that inquiries regarding the antecedents of the petitioner were made and it was found that the petitioner is involved in several other cases.

15. Mr Sumit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stoutly disputed that the petitioner was involved in the offence for which he is charged.

16. Mr Sumit had also submitted that there were no incriminating materials against the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner was not named in the secret information on the basis of which Bhagwan Singh had been apprehended. He further contended that no incriminating material was found in possession of the petitioner. Although, the accused Bhagwan Singh had stated that he had brought the charas to supply to another person and he had described this person as ‘Bhedha Bhai’, he submitted that ‘Bhedha Bhai’ is a common expression and means big brother or elder brother. Therefore, it could not be assumed that the petitioner is involved in the offence merely on the basis of his description as Bhedha Bhai. He stated that although the petitioner (Bhagwan Singh) had also disclosed the mobile phone number but there is little evidence that the said mobile phone was being used by the petitioner at the material time.

17. Mr Sumit also drew the attention of this Court to two statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that the same are not incriminating. Lastly, he submitted that in any event, these statements were retracted by the petitioner on the first available opportunity. In addition, he submitted that Baljit Singh who had allegedly written down the said statements was not included in the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, the NCB could not establish that the statements relied upon by them were given voluntarily.

18. He further stated that the allegation that the petitioner was involved in any other case was erroneous. In view of the above, this Court had further directed that further inquiries be made from the SHO/officer incharge of the police station, Baroda, Sonepat, Haryana.

19. Mr Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the NCB submits that such inquiries were conducted and it appears that the petitioner does not have any criminal record at the concerned police station. Although, another person, who has similar name as that of the petitioner does have the criminal record at the said police station. He further submitted that the confusion was also caused because the name of the petitioner’s father was also similar to name of the father of that person.

20. Mr Bansal further contended that in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, no person who is accused of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act and involves commercial quantity, can be released on bail unless (a) the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose such application; (b) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence; and (c) that the court believes that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

21. He submitted that in the present case, the quantities recovered from Bhagwan Singh were commercial quantities and, therefore, in terms of Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner could not be released on bail unless this Court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the offence for which he is charged.

22. It is apparent from the above that the NCB’s case rests, essentially, on the statements of Bhagwan Singh and the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS and the analysis of their call records. It is, thus, necessary to examine the statements made by the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

23. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the alleged voluntarily statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

24. First of all, it is necessary to ascertain that the said statement had been made voluntarily (see: Mohammed Fasrin v. State: (2019) 8 SCC 811). In the facts of the present case, the said issue is contentious one considering that the petitioner claims that he retracted the said statement at the first reasonable opportunity. Having stated that, it is also necessary to mention that a plain reading of the petitioner’s statement indicates that he had expressly denied that he had any knowledge of Bhagwan Singh carrying seven kilograms of charas on 11.01.2019. He had allegedly admitted that he had on one prior occasion purchased charas from the accused Bhagwan Singh but he categorically denied his involvement in the offence for which he is charged. The petitioner had also denied that he was in touch with Bhagwan Singh on that date and had stated that he had stopped using that mobile number for the past five months. In addition, he also stated that on 11.01.2019, the phone with the SIM of that mobile number was lost.

25. He was also questioned as to whom he had supplied the charas that was purchased by him on an earlier occasion. He stated that he did not know the name or the mobile number of that person but he mentioned the name of his village. Prima facie, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner can be convicted on the basis of his statement.

26. The petitioner’s statement was recorded for the second time on 14.06.2019.

27. A plain reading of the said statements also indicates that the petitioner had not admitted or confessed that he was involved in the offence for which he is charged. However, he had admitted that on one previous occasion, he had purchased two kilograms of charas from Bhagwan Singh at a consideration Rs.30,000/-. Insofar as the use of mobile phone number 9813752042 is concerned, he denied that he was using the same on 11.09.2019.

28. As noticed above, both these statements were retracted by the petitioner.

29. It is well settled that a statement of a co-accused has limited evidentiary value and it is difficult to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of a statement/testimony of a co-accused. At best, the same can be used as a corroborative evidence (see: Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar: (1964) 6 SCR 623; Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1952 SC 159; Mohammed Fasrin v. State: (2019) 8 SCC 811). Thus, the alleged voluntary statement of Bhagwan Singh may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner of the alleged offence.

30. Undisputedly, no incriminating material was found from the petitioner. The NCB places reliance on two statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

31. In this regard, it is also relevant to mention that the issue whether a self-incriminating statement made by an accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence is pending consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu: (2013) 13 SCC 344. Even if such a statement is considered as admissible, it is a weak evidence with limited evidentiary value.

32. Having stated the above, a plain reading of the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act indicates that he had expressly denied that he had any knowledge of Bhagwan Singh carrying 7 kgs of charas on 11.01.2019. He had allegedly admitted that he had, on one prior occasion, purchased charas from the accused Bhagwan Singh but he categorically denied any involvement in the offence which is alleged in the complaint.

33. The petitioner had also denied being in touch with Bhagwan Singh on the day in question (that is, 11.01.2019) and had claimed that he had stopped using the mobile no. 9813752042 for the past five months. He also stated that on 11.01.2019, the phone with the said mobile number was lost.

34. Considering that the NCB’s case rests substantially on the statements of the petitioner and that of the accused Bhagwan Singh, this Court is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to accept that that the petitioner may not be involved in the offence and he may be acquitted.

35. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine the evidenc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e in any further detail. The entire evidence has not been led and the same would be evaluated by the concerned court at the stage of final arguments. 36. However, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is required to examine the material on record for the limited purpose of considering whether to release the accused on bail. It is, thus, clarified that the observations made by this Court in this order are for the aforesaid limited purpose and the trial court shall consider the case on its merits, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 37. In view of the above, this Court allows the present petition and directs that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This is also subject to the following further conditions:- a) the petitioner shall provide his contact number and ensure that he is reachable on it at all times; b) the petitioner shall telephonically mark his presence before the concerned IO and report his whereabouts on Monday of every other week/alternative week; c) the petitioner shall give prior information to the IO regarding any change in his residential address; d) the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned IO; and e) the petitioner shall not contact any of the witnesses or the co-accused either directly or indirectly. 38. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 39. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-09-2020 Jeet Ram Versus The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Supreme Court of India
11-09-2020 Kishan Mukesh Bhai Dhandhukiya Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
02-09-2020 Jay Haresh Somaiya Versus Narcotic Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 Sagar Sitaram Mitre Versus Bhanu Pratap, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Sub-Zone, Goa In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-08-2020 Sonia Shamrao Naik Gaonkar Versus Narcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 Gitabai Bhagwan Pardeshi @ Geetabai Sanjay Rajput Versus Hirkanbai Aadhar Patil & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-08-2020 P.V. Rao, Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Versus Anil Baburao Pansare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Nitesh Amrut Bhai Patel & Another Versus Narcotic Control Bureau & Another High Court of Delhi
03-07-2020 M/s. Shri Balaji Wash Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Another High Court of Delhi
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 The Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus Mehul Bafna High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-05-2020 Desai vipul bhai mafa bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-05-2020 Patel Imtiyaz bhai Ibrahim bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-05-2020 Shivaraj URS Versus Union of India, Narcotic Control Bureau, Represented by Learned Special Public Prosecutor, K.N. Mohan High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Rajan Arjunan Versus M/s. KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd. Kattappana, Represented by Its Credit Control Officer, Bineesh Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Anant Vardhan Pathak @ Anant Satish Pathak Versus Union of India [Narcotic Control Bureau High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-05-2020 Okafor Chukwuka Ugochukwu & Another Versus Narcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Mahesh Bhai Reva Bhai Pandya Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-03-2020 Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai – 90 High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 All India Drugs Control Officers Confederation, Rep. by its President, M. Dhilip Kumar Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagwan Bhika Shirsath & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-02-2020 Thounaojam Lemba Singh Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Manipur High Court of Manipur
04-02-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Gopaldas Bhagwan Das & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 G.S. Mani Versus Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
27-01-2020 G. Margaret Malini & Others Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, (Under the control of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Muhammed Ameen & Another Versus The Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin, Represented by Its Intelligence Officer, Through Its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 Jai Bhagwan Goel Versus Harjeet Kaur & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-01-2020 The Junior Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L & others Versus Bhagwan Oil Mill Through it's Proprietor Bhagwan Yadavrao Pund Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
03-01-2020 Godawaribai Purushottam Bawaskar Versus Sitaram Bhagwan & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-12-2019 Bhagwan Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through it's Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-12-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Chandrakant Bhagwan Katkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2019 Bhagwan Sahay & Others Versus State Govt., Through Tesildar, Sanganer, Jaipur & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
26-11-2019 Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Versus B. Heera Naik & Others Supreme Court of India
25-11-2019 Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Lee Wei Qi High Court of Delhi
19-11-2019 Bhagwan Das Bhajanka (Deceased) Through His Lrs. Versus Bimala Devi Goyal Supreme Court of India
18-11-2019 Taher Bhai Sheikh Abbas Bhai Deesawala & Others Versus Nafisa Ismail Dhariwala & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 J. Sathish Versus The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 Sunil Bhai Sheth Versus M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-10-2019 Arun Kumar Saraf Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Others High Court of Delhi
16-10-2019 Bhagwan @ Maharu Ragho Koli Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-10-2019 Kenneth Stanley (alias) Ken Male (South African National, bearing Passport No.408381458) Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 Suganthi Sheeba Versus The Director of Drug Control, Siva Sankaran Road, Teynampet, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 M/s. I.N. Agrovet Products & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-09-2019 Kishor Bhagwan Bhagat & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-09-2019 Puducherry State National Vector Borne Disease (Filaria – Malaria) Control, Programme Adi-Dravidar Field Workers Welfare Association, Represented by its Secretary S. Saravanaperumal, Puducherry Versus The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Government of Puducherry, Office of the Co-operative Department, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 Puran Chand Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-09-2019 Ozy Chukuwudu @ Uzo Chukuwudu Versus Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau Bangalore Zonal Unit High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2019 Madurai Farooq Ahmed Versus The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-2019 Bhagwan Versus State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home, Mumbai, Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
05-08-2019 Akhtar Jafar Bagwan Versus Nasim Akhtar Bhagwan & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-08-2019 Bhagwan Das Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
08-07-2019 Bhagwan Uttamrao Sonawane & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
08-07-2019 State Versus Khimji Bhai Jadeja High Court of Delhi
08-07-2019 Sunil Bhai Sheth Versus M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-07-2019 Haresh Kumar Laxman Bhai & Co. & Others Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
13-06-2019 M/s. Mahesh Timber Trading Company, Represented by its Managing Partner Mavji Bhai M Patel, Kollathur Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Krichi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-05-2019 Rafiq Qureshi Versus Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit Supreme Court of India
06-05-2019 Satyam Kumar Sah & Others Versus Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) High Court of Delhi
03-05-2019 Nilesh Bhagwan Mahajan Versus Shivpriya Nilesh Mahajan In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2019 Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-04-2019 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhagwan Dei @ Bhagwan Devi High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-04-2019 T. Packiyanathan @ Nathan & Another Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcortic Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Bhagwan Das Goel(Dead) Through His L.Rs. & Others Versus Pyare Kishan Agarwal Supreme Court of India
03-04-2019 Grace Rai @ Rose Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Bengaluru Zonal Unit High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 Ramesh Kumar Versus Norcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
14-03-2019 Dr. Shobana Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by M. Rani, M. Pharm Drugs Inspector, O/o. The Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Zone II, D.M.S.Campus, Teynampet High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Board of Control For Cricket In India & Others Versus Cricket Association of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
21-02-2019 Karan Mahajan & Others Versus Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others High Court of Delhi
21-02-2019 M/s. Kothari Marcentiles Pvt. Ltd. & Rep. by its prop., Bhagwan Das Kothari Others Versus Swapan Kr. Pal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-02-2019 Wasib Khan Liaquat Ali Versus State by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2019 Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Versus Sterlite Industries Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2019 Jai Bhagwan & Another Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
31-01-2019 Bhagwan Versus Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
31-01-2019 Bhagwan Sahay Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-01-2019 Rakesh bhai magan bhai barot Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-01-2019 Bhagwan Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
21-01-2019 M/s. Pieco India Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Shatabdi Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
19-01-2019 Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus Kamza Zakeeya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2019 Jeetu Bhai Motwani Versus Lekhram Namdeo High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-01-2019 Bhupesh Bhagwan Urkude Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Through Chief Regional Manager & Another Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
22-12-2018 M/s. Shri Sai Industries, Through Proprietor Money Nair & Others Versus M/s. Power & Control Transformer Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-12-2018 Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF) Versus Bhai Manjit Singh & Another High Court of Delhi
30-11-2018 Sanjay Agrawal & Others Versus Bhagwan Sheorinarayan Math Mandir Trust Sheorinarayan, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-11-2018 The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus S. Yogadasan @ Kutty & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2018 B. Janaka Sankar Versus The Central Pollution Control Board of India, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Ministry of Environment & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
19-11-2018 Sajjad Husain Advocate Versus U.P. Pollution Control Board High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-10-2018 Sanjeev Wasan Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Through its Drugs Inspector Navneet Pratap Singh Central Drugs Standards Control Organization, (CDSCO) In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-10-2018 Bhagwan & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-10-2018 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Chetas Control Systems Pvt Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
15-10-2018 John Susai Navies Mannala @ Mannala Versus State represented by the Intelligence Officer, NCB (Narcotic Control Board), Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-10-2018 M/s. Zeus Pharmaceuticals, Rep. by Mr.Raghu Raghav Balasaria, Himachal Pradesh & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu represented by R. Kannan, Drugs Inspector, Thiruvallur Range, Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Thiruvallur Zone, Thiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2018 M/s. Vinayak Manu Trade Private Limited, Jaipur & Others Versus State represented by, The Drugs Inspector, Intelligence Wing, Office of the Directorate of Drugs Control, Teynampet, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2018 Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Intelligence Unit, Tiruvandram Versus Saraswathi @ Kamalam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 Poddar Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd., Uttarakhand & Another Versus State represented by Drugs Inspector Aranthangi Range O/o, the Asst. Director of Drugs Control, Thanjavur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-09-2018 Bhagwan Mishra Versus Madhuri Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2018 Dcit Corporate Circle 2(1) Versus Faurecia Emiision Control Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai