Sukhpal Singh Alias Gaggu v. State Of Punjab

 
        





  



!"# $% #&'('$) *
*



+, - +

- +   ** #"'"'$)#.

/#.(0( +   

*** #(1$)2#)"



 3 -  *

+

+  +

 


 





 



 

 

 
 

+  +

4

*


"



#$%
&&



 

  '
'



()*
+,-

"#."/,"




,.
".
"%

 
+0



#11
#12
#2,
)&

'


 '
3'
0
4' " 



 


 
 '
 
'
5

 ''
 5
 
 

6
5


 


 




*



 
 5

 

 
"."


5

 $  

 

 

 

'  7
 


 8 "During interrogation he disclosed that we are 03 brothers and my elder brother namely Baljit Singh is married and he is residing in village Bhodipura. From about last 06/07 years I am residing as a tenant in Rampura. Earlier I used to drive

 truck in the Truck Union. About 06/7 months ago I was driving a canter bearing registration No.PB+08+AK 8281 which is of Sukhpal Singh @ Gaggu son of Malkit Singh, Caste Jatt, resident of Village Baghapurana. About 05/06 years ago my marriage solemnized with Gagandeep Kaur daughter of Jasbir Singh resident of Amlu Kotli and I have two daughters. I rarely used to visit. Since my childhood I was in the habit of consuming drugs. Some time ago I meet Sikander Singh son of Ajaib Singh caste Majbi resident of Bhairuka who was running a retail shop in the village. We both made up mind that we will sell the poppy husk in Punjab at High price after bringing the same from Rajasthan at cheap rate. Thereafter we purchased poppy husk from Rajasthan at Rs 300/+ per Kg and packed the same in the plastic bags and were coming towards in the area of Mehal Kalan after loading the same in the canter. On which we have been apprehended by you near bridge of minor drain. I have committed mistake. Kindly forgive me."

# '
 

 
7



5
 
& 
  
'
& 
4'


7

,$/-"/,#
 
 
'

'7


$,/-"/,$

7


 '5

/$/%"/"" $ 
'
 '

 


 
 




''5
7'

 




 
 
7
  

 

 
' 
7


8 
7'5

 

6
5

 
 
  



 5
 




'

 


  
+0




 

*'

'

 



7

 





 
 

    
!

 "  

# $$  

 %&
 

" "



  '

('

)

'   *    '

$+,  

  &   -.  /  /   

 0-  1  $  

 %3
4

*

   51 2

 #$&  

   4.





  6 .  -    

'  7 *    

  

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

  " ,

 

  $
!



 04- 9:9:

, 3%:
 



'
 
 
 



  

 '
'
 



7

 
'  7


8 

 


 

 
 
 

 



 5

/$/%"/""
 

 
,-
 



:7



 '

 


' # ;
 
 

 
'

 '

'

 
'5

"-,,"/"$
5
5





3'
'
  0 5



'
 '
3'
0
4'
45
 
 
'5


 
 




 

 '
' 

 
 

 
''


7
 
  

7

 
' 
7


8 
 



 

 
 



7

 
+0







< 

'
7
 

 


 
,-
  


:7

 . )


 
'
 '


 


'  1 
='

7
& 

 


 6 .

  " > ?
'

 8 "4. The High Court decided to grant pre+arrest 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 accused+Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused+Dinesh 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 charge+sheet 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 set+aside. As a consequence, the Appellant+State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.

@7 
 'A )
4.



 6 .-   

' * 



2 2 2$338, ' $%22,


' 
 8 "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 co+accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co+accused. 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."

>7 
 '?


& 

 


!



 04-

9:9:, 3%:
'

 8 "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 co+ 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 co+accused 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 Covid+19 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 vice+versa 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:+ 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:+ "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 co+accused who were found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with the co+accused 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 co+accused, 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 above+said 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.

>7 
 '?

2 
 '

 
7

7
 '
 
 
'






 
 



7


' 
7 

8 

 




 
 
 
 ' 
7 - )
 


 


7

 
'  7


8 
+
5



7
7

 

)
 
 



7

 
+0


 
< 
(  


 
,-
 


 :7



 
 
!'

 




' '5

 '


57

!


 
  


 

 
< 


prima facie 


$2
+0

 

 
7
 '
 %


  
77

 
7

 

 
 

''

 
8

'

6



'








'

'





  
'

 5


 


'
& B0 5


,/ 

 ''


 
'


  

5

5
7
''
 
'



 
'

7
 

7
 



'

5
 
7
 
 
  
7

 
 5


$/,,"/"$ ,, )

 

>
5


 '?
 ''
 
(0*

 
 7

*"/////B8


 
7

 
!'
& 

  
7
 '

''





'



 

  

7
'
  
 
 
," 



 

+  +



 *
*



+

56#"6#.

(1#!7')89.#!($)#2

#(9$ 56#"6#.

.#1$."!:;#

#(9$