Amarjeet v. State of Haryana

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. thThe prayer in this 5  petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C  is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.447 dated 07.12.2021 registered under Sections 21(C) and 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

¶2The present FIR came to be registered when Akbar @ Golu, Ravinder @ Ravi and Dhruv Kumar @ Alok were found in possession of 400 grams of heroin. Pursuant   to   their   arrest,   they   disclosed   that   the   petitioner-Amarjeet had given them Rs.2.5 lacs to bring heroin from his known person at Gurgaon namely, Lilli.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -2-the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused, namely, Akbar @ Golu, Ravinder @ Ravi and Dhruv Kumar @ Alok. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762,  Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020.", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner was in custody since 22.04.2022 and none of the 18  prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when two other co-accused, namely, Ravinder alias Ravi and Dhruv Kumar alias Alok had been granted the concession of interim bail vide orders dated 25.04.2022 and 11.05.2022. CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -3- #. he learned counsel for the respondent2"tate, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a ha(itual offender with 4ultiple cases re'istered a'ainst hi4, the details of which are as under:2 Sr. Details of case Recovery Status of case No.

¶1FIR 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

¶2FIR 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

¶3FIR 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

¶4FIR 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 CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -4-NDPS Act, Police Station City Fatehabad

¶5FIR 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

¶6FIR 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

¶7FIR 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

¶8FIR 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)

¶9FIR No.186 dated Recovery of 50 Pending under trial and is fixed CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -5-

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

¶10FIR 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

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

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

¶3FIR 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.

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

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

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

¶8FIR No.615 dated 26.09.2015 U/S 6131314 of Excise Act, CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -6-

9. FIR No.23 dated 14.01.2016 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

10. FIR No.724 dated 24.11.2015 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

11. FIR No.239 dated 17.04.2015 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

12. FIR No.121 dated 16.02.2017 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

13. FIR No.229 dated 12.05.2017 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad.

14. FIR No.316 dated 09.05.2017 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, Police Station City Fatehabad."

¶5He further contends that the co-accused of the petitioner had been granted the concession of interim bail only in terms of the judgment in the case of  Inderjit Singh Laddi Versus State of Punjab, 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 as the FSL report was awaited. The case of the petitioner was on a different footing. Even otherwise, there were no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail when the last bail application of the petitioner came to be argued at length and dismissed as recently as on 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-6). He, however, concedes that the petitioner had been named in the disclosure statement, was in custody since 22.04.2022, none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and that two co-accused namely, Ravinder alias Ravi and Dhruv Kumar alias Alok had been granted the concession of interim regular bail.

¶6I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -7- ,. he Hon<(le "upre4e &ourt in the case of  State of 6ar.ana Versus Samarth "umar 2022 (,) RCR (Criminal)  $, held as under: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.

¶5But, 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.

¶6Learned 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.

¶7The 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. CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -8-

¶8In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in  T ofan 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.

¶9To 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.

¶10In 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. =e4phasis supplied>

¶3*n Vi4a. Singh Versus The State of 6ar.ana, -earing Spe'ial 7ea*e to Appeal (Crl2) No2(s)2$2338202, de'ided on $%2052202,, it was held as under: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. CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -9-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." 0e4phasis supplied1 %.   his &ourt in the case of Vi!rant Singh Versus State of 0un4a-, CR9:9:, 35%:2020, held as under: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 CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -10-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 CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -11-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. 0e4phasis supplied1 .-. his &ourt in the case of Ran4it Singh Versus State of 0un4a-, CR9:9:25523:202,, de'ided on $%20%2202,, held as under: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.

¶9When 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.

¶10Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -12-certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

¶11In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. 0e4phasi?ed supplied1 ... his &ourt in + %# +#%12 3 C2a45a*( +a2#60 CRM-M-37849-20220 -e"#-e-  % 20'70'2022, held as under: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 CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -13-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)

¶152In 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. 0e4phasis supplied1 ./. *n Samarth "umar 0supra1 the Hon<(le "upre4e &ourt had clearly held that an accused who had (een na4ed in the disclosure state4ent of a co2 accused was not entitled to the 'rant of anticipatory (ail (ut could (e 'ranted re'ular (ail. However, in Vi4a. Singh 0supra1 a so4ewhat contrary view was taken and the accused therein was 'ranted the concession of anticipatory (ail even thou'h he had (een an accused in another case under the NDP" Act in which he was on (ail. *n Vi!rant Singh 0supra1 this &ourt held that where an accused had (een na4ed in the disclosure state4ent of his co2accused and there were &D+s@AhatsApp calls@chats (etween the arrested accused and the person na4ed in a disclosure state4ent then in the a(sence of the contents of the conversation@chats (ail could not (e denied to the said accused. *n Ran4it Singh 0supra1 and Soni Singh < Cham!aur Sahi-0supra1 it has (een held (y this CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -14-Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.

¶13Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case, other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of his co-accused, the petitioner is also an accused in 10 other cases under the NDPS Act which were registered prior to the registration of the instant FIR. He is also a convict in cases under the Excise Act. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the investigating agency.

¶14In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail. Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the said concession. thFurther the 4  bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as recently as on 29.01.2024 and there are no changed circumstances warranting grant of bail. CRM-M-33924-2024                                                                   -15-

¶15In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

30.07.2024 JITESH  Whether speaking/reasoned:-  Yes/No Whether reportable:-          Yes/No

CRM-M-33924-2024 -1- (279) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33924-2024 Date of Decision: 30.07.2024 AMARJEET ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana. ****