Amarjeet v. State Of Haryana

 
       







   















!"

#$

"%&'&#(
))





))) "!&!&#("* +"*','

-   



))) "'.#(/"(!



 0 1

) -

 - -

   



  
 





  
  





 

!!!!

 - -

 2 )

"
 


#



#$%
& &



 ' 

' 
( 

 
( '
)*+
 ##,
 
-, ./ /-/.
' 

/.0&1

/,2


3

.%45


 
  )  ( 
3
)  (
/

"

)*+




(
'

6( 
7
 + 
7
+ 

3



7
6





#-- '





 





 

2

 
 
'

+ / 5
 

('



6



'




 
8

$

"
 





 

  
(
 


 



 


 




 

'



  


2 


 



6( 
7

+ 
7
+ 

3



7
6
 






 
 
(

+ 

 



'




 


 

 
 

     
!

"  

# $$  

 %&
 

" "



  '

('

)

'   *    '

$+,  

  &   -.  /  /   

 0-   1 $  

 %3
4

*

   51 2

 #$&  

   4. 





  6 .  -    

'  7 *    

  

2  2 2$338,  ' $%22, 6 .*

  " ,

 

  $ !

 

 04- 9:9:

, 3%:2;


 
(

 


 
(
' 
 

' 
( 


 
(





   


2 





( 


'







 



// -# /-//
 


.4


 
(
9



 

  




( 




2  

 
+ 
 
+ 

3



 
6
 
(
'  



( 


 
/5 -# /-//

..

-5 /-// 9
2:

2,1

#

"
 



 2 



  
 




 ( 


 
  '
'


 

 




2

 Sr.

Details of case Recovery Status of case No.

1.

FIR No.33 dated Recovery of 75 Pending under trial and is fixed 19.01.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 11.12.2023 for Prosecution 21b/61/85 of petitioner (in Evidence NDPS Act, Police custody) Station City Fatehabad 2.

FIR no.255 dated Recovery of 51 Pending under trial and is fixed 10.07.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 20.11.2023 for Prosecution 21b/61/85 of petitioner (on Bail) Evidence NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad 3.

FIR no.324 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed 16.08.2018 u/s supplied 75 grams for 02.01.2024 for Appearance 21b/61/85 of (in custody). As bail NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was Station Sadar cancelled on Fatehabad 02.03.2022 due to non3appearance 4.

FIR no.441 dated Recovery of 90 Pending under trial and is fixed 09.08.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 07.11.2023 for Prosecution 21b/61/85 of petitioner (On bail) Evidence NDPS Act, Police Station City Fatehabad 5.

FIR no.69 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed 01.03.2019 u/s supplied 7 grams for 01.12.2023 for Prosecution 21b/29/61/85 (in custody) Evidence

 NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad 6.

FIR no.664 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed 28.11.2018 u/s supplied 15 grams for 31.01.2024 for Prosecution 21b/61/85 of (On Bail) Evidence NDPS Act, Police Station City Fatehabad 7.

FIR No.279 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed 16.07.2019 u/s supplied 18 grams for 18.12.2023 for Appearance 21b/61/85 of (In custody). As bail NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was Station Sadar cancelled on Fatehabad 20.01.2023 due to non3appearance 8.

FIR No.168 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed 02.10.2019 u/s supplied 5 grams for 09.11.2023 for Prosecution 21b/29/61/85 of (On bail).

Evidence NDPS Act, Police Station Jhanir (Mansa) 9.

FIR No.186 dated Recovery of 50 Pending under trial and is fixed 07.05.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 06.11.2023 for Prosecution 21c/61/85 of petitioner (On Bail) Evidence NDPS Act, Police Station City Tohana 10.

FIR No.147 dated Recovery of 12 Pending under trial and is fixed 06.06.2020 u/s grams Heroin from for 23.11.2023 for Prosecution 21/25/61/85 of petitioner (On bail).

Evidence.

 NDPS Act, Police Station Sardulgarh, Mansa (Punjab) LIST OF CASES ENDED IN CONVICTION:3

1. FIR No.429 dated 13.07.2014 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad.

2. FIR No.122 dated 22.02.2014 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

3. FIR No.20 dated 13.01.2018 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad.

4.FIR No.245 dated 23.04.2014 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad.

5. FIR No.406 dated 02.07.2014 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

6. FIR No.56 dated 07.02.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

7. FIR No.247 dated 19.04.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

8. FIR No.615 dated 26.09.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

9. FIR No.23 dated 14.01.2016 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

10. FIR No.724 dated 24.11.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

11. FIR No.239 dated 17.04.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

12. FIR No.121 dated 16.02.2017 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

13. FIR No.229 dated 12.05.2017 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.



14. FIR No.316 dated 09.05.2017 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad."



 

2 



 
( ' 




( 


 


'



  



4    7 

      04-  $&,    

  , 

)8
 
 
 
"
 



  


'

;




 '

     '
' 

( 


 
( 

 





 
(
'

'

 




-, ..

/-/$

 
-, ..

/-/$
0 9
251



 

  
(






  
 



// -# /-// 


.4


 
(
9



 

 
 2 


 
+ 
 
+ 

3



 
6
 (
' 




' 
( 

:

*
 
 

 


(




'

,

"
<(
  
&


 

 6 .

  " ,  

  $


2 "4. The High Court decided to grant pre3arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on

  the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused3Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused3Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge3sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.

10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set3aside. As a consequence, the Appellant3State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.

=

 


>



*
4. 



 6 .-   

' * 



2 2 2$338, ' $%22,

 



2 "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co3accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co3accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed.

All pending applications are disposed of."

0

 


1 %

"
&


 

!

 

 04-

9:9:, 3%:


2 "It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co3 accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co3accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the

 disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the petitioners.

The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020 (Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and 23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid319 Pandemic. The petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused, Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or vice3versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

A Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:3 Still further, no conversation detail between accused Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.

In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep accused."

In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:3 "Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not found in possession of any contraband article. Over and

 above that, the call data records may reveal that in an around the time of incident, he was in contact with the co3accused who were found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with the co3accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused."

A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co3accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material against the petitioners.

Keeping in view the above3said facts and circumstances, as well as law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to their not being required in any other case.

0

 


1 .-

"
&


 

4 

 04-

9:9:3:, ' $%2%2,


2 "8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely

 that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency.

9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied.

10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

0

 ?


1 ..

"
&

-#(& -&(34 4 67 ,* - 4&82

9


2 /"%&/"/ #(
))





2 "The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret information. He has been named only in the disclosure statement of his co3accused which is inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since 26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, he deserved the concession of bail. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co3accused. As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the

 Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail in view of his antecedents.

I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal)

152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed. 0

 


1 ./

*
  "
0  1

<(
  
&
 
  
 



 
(






  


2


 




' 




( 
(

(
'  ' 
( 


4.
0  1

  
 

  6




 
' 






(  
'

 
(




 


3

 

 

( 
*
!

 0  1

&

 




 
(






  


2 



 
&3+@A 

 @ 
(





 





  



(




  @ 
( 


(



 

*
4

0  1

 <

!  - 0  1

 
(

(
 &
 



 
)*+
'







  


'

 
(






  

 
 




( 
.$

& '
( 6


 

  



  
 

 
)*+




 
(
  






( 



  


2 

 




.-

 


3



'




' 


 
)*+






 

 ;9

*

'
6
 



 
(


 


 
)*+


 

 


'

'
'
.#

*
 



 
)*+
'





' 


 





 '
 
$,


3

 

 







  
6






 
(
 
)

  
 
' 

( 


$,


3







(


& &



 




' 

( 

"

 ( 






' 

( 







& &
6 '



  

 '

2 


  
 

 
(
' 
  


 )


( 

 



 
 





-, ..

/-/$




 '
     '
' 

( 

.5

*



(
*








"




 
 

 - -

   
))

 -

:4"!4"* '." 7&(3;*" '#("/

"';# :4"!4"* *".#*! 8<"

"';#