High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24635/2021dismissed

Anil Kapoor v. State Of Haryana

2021-12-22Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh8 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:22.12.2021 Anil Kapoor ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

#$ %& '

(

) !

*" '

,-. & & /01 ,2 2'

! +

+! 2 !)"

! "

" +!

4 +!5.2

6 !!

!- 7

8"3

3 /01

* !

8"3

!!"

-2-

! +"

8"3

3 ": ; '

" 3<=" $,>

3 !"

8"3 '

" !"

8"3 3 ' "!

! 3

+3 !! !

+ ) !

" " -. 03

"3) !

33 !" 3 !

) "

!A0 @

,-.<> & & 0 !

0 @

"33 !

! 3

B Thereafter on 17.08.2021 the following order had been passed, after reproducing the order earlier passed:- "6

+ !

3"!

"! "!

-3- C 0

)

! !

! " 3

8"3 D !

8"3

8"3 3

" 3

8"3> " 5 0 "

B A reply having been filed by the ACP, Panchkula, dated 20.09.2021, thereafter, learned State counsel had admitted, as recorded in the order dated 22.09.2021, that the said reply does not deal with any "legal dealings" between the petitioner and his co-accused Anil Kumar, as regards the sale of cigarettes and beeris, (with Anil Kumar allegedly selling spurious brands of cigarettes due to which a dispute was alleged to have arisen between him and the petitioner, as had been contended earlier by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner). However, it was also recorded in that order that as per the call details record annexed with the reply, there were constant phone calls between the petitioner and the Anil Kumar and consequently a specific query was made by this court to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there was any document available as regards any "legal dealings" between the petitioner and Anil Kumar, pertaining to the sale of cigarettes/beeris.

-4In response thereto, learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner only had bills/cash memos issued by him in the name of Anil Kumar. This court was therefore in the process of in fact dismissing the petition at that stage itself, in view of the fact that bills/cash memos are something that is completely in the hands of the persons issuing him. However, hearing in the matter had still been adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that she wished to place on record documents to show that orders were placed between Anil Kumar and the petitioner for supply of beeris.

Counsel for the petitioner thereafter having filed CRM-33029 of 2021, but not having produced the original documents as were sought to be relied upon in the said application, hearing in the matter had been adjourned, with learned State counsel having sought further time to verify the documents as had been annexed with the said application.

On 24.11.2021 the following order had been then passed by this court in this case:- %0

' !

3 '

!"3 ' =

=" $5 $2

&1 --5

3 '

3 , 0

+ !)"

) !

7 + !

' !

-5-

!"3 ' =

=" 1$ 1$,

' 3

" D

!> ! "!

? C ( &

$!!"

8"3<

= '

! = =" $

&1 --5 !

+ !

" !

! !

3 '

! %5AAB

@" 7

3 +" !

8"3

"! '

3 @" !!

8"3

< !!

8"3 !

!!"

' !

' 3

8"3

! "

! !

+6F !

3="

5 != '

!<!

=" $ >

" '

" G ' '

' ' '"

-63

8"3

! 3

' 3 +!

-<><><

> 4 +!5.2 0

+6" !

3=" ! !

) "3

" @"

" 0 "

B On the next date of hearing, i.e. 10.12.2021, counsel for the petitioner had essentially reiterated all that she had argued earlier, to the effect that the petitioners' name having been disclosed only in an alleged disclosure statement made in police custody by his co-accused Anil Kumar, it was not admissible in evidence and that even if it was so disclosed, it was only on account of the dispute between the two of them as regards sale of unbranded cigarettes by Anil Kumar, which allegedly were supplied by the petitioner but which actually were not so supplied.

Learned State counsel of course referred to the two replies filed on behalf of the respondent State, by the ACP, Panchkula, to submit that with there being constant "telephonic conversations" between the petitioner (Anil Kapoor) and Anil Kumar, as per call details records of their mobile phones (on January 06 and 11, 2021 and February 01, 2021), before the petitioner supplied Charas (cannabis), and Anil Kumar having disclosed that the petitioner had in fact supplied him 6 kgs. of the substance, the petitioner cannot be admitted to bail even in terms of Section 37 of the Act of 1985.

-7Having considered the matter, it is first to be seen that as recorded in the order dated 24.11.2021, even as rgards the tax invoice annexed by the petitioner with CRM-33029 of 2021 (taken on record as Annexure P-10 with the petition), the copy of that invoice given to the investigating agency (produced in court by learned State counsel), was seen to be a photocopy of Invoice No.242, with the date "9/1/21" written on the photocopy with a pen. Thus, obviously the original document (shown to be a tax invoice/bill) did not carry any date on it, with the date having subsequently been written on a photocopy with a pen containing blue ink.

The said tax invoice therefore could not be accepted by this court to be a valid invoice (for the purpose of this petition), and was possibly one which was simply created later to show that the petitioner was selling beeris to Anil Kumar.

Though other tax invoices have been annexed alongwith the said application (taken on record as Annexures P-11 to P-16 with the petition), those tax invoices were issued by Bodrul Enterprise, Murshidabad, West Bengal, showing a supply of handmade branded beeris to the petitioner. Thus, in a nutshell, as regards any genuine transaction of the sale of cigarettes/beeris by the petitioner to Anil Kumar, it cannot be said (again for the purpose of this petition alone), that any valid document has been brought to the notice of this court.

In any case, the issue before this court is the recovery of 5 kgs. and 175 grams of Charas from Anil Kumars' premises, which, as per the alleged disclosure statement of Anil Kumar, was supplied to him by the petitioner, with the

-8disclosure statement being backed up, as per the investigating agency, with the phone calls stated to have been exchanged between the petitioner and Anil Kumar on three different dates prior to recovery of that Charas (the recovery being on 05.02.2021).

Though otherwise normally this court would admit an accused to bail if the only allegation against him was an alleged disclosure statement made in police custody, but looking at all the facts enumerated hereinabove together, I would find it difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case also against the petitioner to admit him to bail even in terms of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Consequently, this petition is dismissed and the interim order passed on 01.07.2021 is hereby vacated.

However, it is made absolutely clear that no observation made by this court in any of the orders passed in this petition would be taken into consideration as regards the merits of the case, for or against the petitioner or any of his coaccused, with all such observations having been made only in the context of a petition filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., and the investigation would continue as per the evidence gathered, and led before the trial court in any trial that may thereafter ensue. December 22, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No