Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2014
Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision: 22-3-2014
Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014
Paramjit Singh Chahal ... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
Crl. M. No.8519-M of 2014
Jagjit Singh Chahal ... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
Crl. M. No.8516-M of 2014
Jagjit Singh Chahal ... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
1) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?. Yes
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner,
in Crl.Misc. Nos. M-8339, M-8519 and M-8516 of 2014.
Mr. A.S.Grewal, Additional Advocate General,Punjab,
and Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG Punjab
...
M. JEYAPAUL, J:
1. This order shall dispose of three bail applications bearing Nos.
Crl.M-8339 of 2014 filed by Paramjit Singh Chahal, Crl. M-8519 of 2014 and Crl. M-8516 of 2014 filed by Jagjit Singh Chahal.
2. While the first two petitions relate to grant of bail in FIR No. 56 dated 15.5.2013 under Sections 379, 411, 473 and 120-B IPC and Sections 21 Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 2 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Police Station Banur, District Patiala, the last petition relates to prayer for bial in FIR No. 109 dated 24.12.2013 at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar, under Sections 21, 27 and 29 of the Act.
3. While petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal is seeking bail having been in incarceration for the last more than four months, petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal physically surrendered before this Court on 6.3.2014 by relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 559 and Bharat Maratha v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 BCR 516. This Court accepted the surrender and issued notice to the State upon which learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State, fairly conceded that this Court had ample jurisdiction to accept the surrender and deal with the petition appropriately.
4. On 6.3.2014, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal that he and his brother were inter-alia running pharmaceutical units in Himachal Pradesh and that the police had indulged in an abuse of process of law by implicating and arresting his brother. He had urged that his brother had already approached this Court vide Civil Writ Petition No. 88 of 2014 seeking investigation by an independent agency like CBI and vide order dated 9.1.2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued notice of motion to the State. The said petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal, 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 830 and Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009)7 Supreme Court Cases 559, to contend that in the power to grant bail, there is an Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 3 inherent power in the Court to grant interim bail to a person, pending final disposal of the bail application. It was also observed that such interim release on bail will have to be considered on the date of filing itself.
5. Considering the prima-facie submissions on behalf of the petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal that his name did not find a mention in the FIR; no recovery has been effected from him; his brother who was in custody has sought CBI investigation by way of a writ petition and that he and his brother have been running pharmaceutical units after getting proper licence from the Authorities concerned, this Court vide order dated 6.3.2014 granted interim bail to the said petitioner while directing him to surrender his passport and appear before the police station concerned every day at a stipulated time. Relying upon the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Birendra Kumar Pandey and Another v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 28 of 2012 decided on 16.4.2012, as also in the light of Section 410 Cr.P.C., this Court further directed that interrogation of petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal would take place in the visible presence of an Advocate of his choice.
6. The allegations forming the basis of arrest of the petitioner in case FIR No. 56 (supra), as culled out from the detailed reply by way of affidavit of Chand Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, are as under:-
(i)On the basis of a secret information that two persons, namely, Satinder @ Dhama and Baljinder Singh @ Sonu are moving in a stolen car with false registration number and are in possession of Pseudoephedrine etc., a naka was laid leading to the apprehension of the said persons along with 500 grams of Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 4 Methamphetamine (ICE). Accordingly, FIR No. 56 supra was registered.
(ii) Disclosure statements of the said persons had led to further recovery of both Pseudoephedrine as well as Methamphetamine.
(iii) Further interrogation of said persons disclosed the involvement of various other accused persons including one Jagdish Bhola.
(iv) On the basis of the statement of one Tejinder Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the petitioners were stated to be involved in the drug racket.
(v) Jagdish Bhola and others were arrested on 11.11.2013 and various recoveries of Pseudoephedrine, Ephedrine etc. were made.
(vi) Upon being confronted with the statement of Tejinder Kumar aforesaid, the said accused arrested on 11.11.2013 including Jagdish Bhola indicted the petitioners.
(vii) Petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal is stated to have been arrested on 13.11.2013 at about 10 P.M. from a residential area near their Tyre Retread Factory at Amritsar.
(viii) Remand of the petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal was taken on 14.11.2013 which continued upto 19.11.2013.
(ix) On 14.11.2013, petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal got recovered two kilograms of Pseudoephedrine and 250 grams of Methamphetamine (ICE) from the dicky of Honda Accord car bearing registration No. PB-10-CE-0001 parked at the said Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 5 factory at Amritsar.
(x) On 15.11.2013 and 16.11.2013, respective searches were carried out at the pharmaceutical manufacturing units of the petitioners, namely, MBP Pharma Private Limited and Montek Bio-Pharma situated at villages Jorhapur and Batoli Kalan in Baddi (Himachal Pradesh).
(xi) While recovery of 110 kgs. of intoxicatant powder, 225 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine, 75 kgs. of Ephedrine and 125 kgs. of Metphormine is stated to have been effected from the factory premises of the said MBP Pharma Private Limited, recovery of 165 kgs. of intoxicant powder, 175 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine, 8.5 kgs. of Metphormine , 250 grams of Methamphetamine (ICE) and 50 kg. of salt Sodium Chloride was made at Montek Bio-Pharma.
7. It is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has since been filed against petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal in FIR No. 56 (supra) on 16.1.2014. Detailed status of various FIRs registered in connection with drug racket has been given in tabulated form in the reply filed on behalf of the State wherein the name of petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal figures in FIR Nos. 56 and 109(supra) whereas the petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal is apparently required to be arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 56 alone. Reply also extensively narrates the entire drug trafficking racket being subject matter of investigation in several FIRs spread over three districts, namely, Patiala, Fatehgarh Sahib and Jalandhar(Rural). Both the petitioners are stated to be Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 6 members of this drug racket.
8. It is further urged on behalf of the State that Methamphetamine (ICE) figures in the list of psychotropic substances at Sr. No. 19 and the preparation of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine are controlled substances as declared by the Central Government vide notification No. S.O. No. 834(E) dated 26.3.2013 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (viid) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act in terms of Section 9-A thereof which is punishable under Section 21-A.
9. It is not denied that in so far as Methamphetamine is concerned, the same does not contravene the provisions of the NDPS Act. Based upon the aforesaid assertions, it is vehemently pleaded that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail and more particularly, accused Paramjit Singh Chahal needs to be subjected to custodial interrogation, though he joined investigation as per the interim directions of this Court, however, he had not rendered any co-operation. It is further urged that unless the custodial interrogation of the said petitioner is allowed, his further investigation would be a mere ritual.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the mode and manner of investigation, glaring procedural violations and factually incorrect and improbable version of the police clearly show abuse and misuse of the provisions of the NDPS Act in so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is contended that the petitioners have been conducting their business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products in terms of requisite licences granted by the competent Authority in Himachal Pradesh and the nature of such licences permits them to manufacture, stock and Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 7 sell various medicines etc. including those products containing Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine. Extensive reliance was placed upon licences issued by the Narcotic Control Bureau, certificates issued by the District Industries Centre, certificates issued by the Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Himachal Pradesh, regarding drug manufacturing licence etc., certificate issued by the Zonal Director, Narcotic Control Bureau as also other certificates issued by the Department of Excise and Customs and the Electricity Board.
11. It is further urged on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal was illegally arrested on the night of 13.11.2013 from his residence at village Ramanachak, District Amritsar. He was alleged to have been illegally detained and was taken from one police station to another till he was brought to Police Station, Banur on 14.11.2013. It is also urged that his father was forcibly taken away from Ludhiana by the police in the night by scaling walls of the house in the absence of any search warrant or authorization. However, the father of the petitioner was stated to have been released in the late evening on 14.11.2013. Reliance has been placed upon the photographs taken from CCTV camera installed at petitioner's residence to show the time, date and place of his arrest. It is also contended that the first remand application as well as second remand application dated 14.11.2013 and 19.11.2013 respectively would show the date of arrest as 14.11.2013 whereas the remand application dated 23.11.2013 shows the date of arrest as 13.11.2013. It is argued that the records had been manipulated so as to meet with the petitioner's argument that the event of his arrest was recorded on CCTV camera.
Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 8
12. It is stated that though the recovery of 250 grams of Methamphetamine (ICE) has been shown to have been effected from a Honda Accord car bearing registration No. PB-10-CE-0001 allegedly parked in the Tyre Retread Factory at Amritsar; however, CCTV camera footage at the petitioner's residence would show that the said car was actually taken into possession by the police at about 8.48 PM on 14.11.2013. In this regard, the photographs have been placed on record. It is, thus, contended that the recovery has been planted and therefore, it would not inspire any confidence.
13. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the petitioners that the searches and seizures conducted at their licensed pharmaceutical units were a farcical exercise and the recovery shown to have been effected is aimed at foisting unwarranted criminal liabilities upon the petitioners. While relying upon the materials collected and filed with the charge-sheet, it is urged that it is not in dispute that the said pharmaceutical units were duly licensed by the appropriate Authority and were valid till March and June, 2017, by virtue of which the units were entitled to manufacture formulation of Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine. It is urged by relying upon various photographs of the premises taken during the alleged searches that various records, articles etc. were taken away by the police who indulged in ransacking the premises. It was also contended that the police did not associate any officer from the Department of Licensing Authority in Himachal Pradesh while conducting such search and seizure operations at the licensed premises. That apart, it is asserted that though the police had recovered vehicle, namely, Mahindra Balero Camper bearing registration No. PB-02-BL-1000 from the petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal during his custodial interrogation, however, the said Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 9 vehicle was used by the police in effecting some other recovery on 14.12.2013 i.e. after several weeks of the recovery thereof. In this regard, the photographs of the screen shots of video played on news channel have been relied upon.
14. One of the main contentions on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire matter is sub-judice and pending adjudication before this Court in CWP No. 88 of 2014 filed for entrusting the investigation to an independent agency in the above peculiar and glaring circumstances. It is pointed out that a PIL by way of CWP No. 20359 of 2013, cognizance of which has been taken by this Court on its own motion, upon a petition received from a retired IPS Officer, is pending adjudication wherein investigations into the drug racket are under scanner. The wife of petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal had approached this Court vide CWP No. 28226 of 2013 in the form of PIL seeking entrustment of investigation into the FIR No. 56 (supra) to CBI. However, vide order dated 20.12.2013, this Court had indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the same as a PIL and permitted the petitioner to urge individual grievance in accordance with law. Consequently, as noticed above, the petitioner has approached this Court vide CWP No. 88 of 2014 wherein vide order dated 9.1.2014, notice of motion was issued.
15. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that pursuant to notice of motion issued by this Court in CWP No. 88 of 2014 supra, the next date of hearing was fixed on 10.2.2014 but prior thereto, in hurry and haste the charge-sheet was filed on 16.1.2014 so as to raise an argument before this Court that the prayer for independent investigation has become redundant. It was emphasized that a substantial time was still availabloe with the investigating Agency to file charge-sheet but the same was hurriedly filed with Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 10 an oblique motive. It was also urged that though the investigating Agency was made aware of the glaring acts of omission and commission by the police in carrying out the arrest, search and seizure relating to the petitioners, in CWP No. 88 of 2014, however, the accusations levelled therein were merely brushed aside without even adverting to them in the charge-sheet.
16. It is also contended that in order to compel petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal to withdraw the said CWP No. 88 of 2014, he was arrested in connection with another case bearing FIR No. 109 (supra) on 13.1.2014. It is urged that neither the petitioner was named therein nor had he any link or connection with the same. Reliance was placed on the remand applications to show that no recovery was effected from petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal despite his custodial interrogation in the said case.
17. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioners that the present case is depictive of violations of procedure as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as NDPS Act. As per the petitioners, the Licensing Authority, Himachal Pradesh, have not found any irregularity in the conduct of the petitioners' licensed Pharma units and have taken no steps to cancel such licences as there was no violation of any condition of licence. Therefore, it was urged that the police had no authority to question the licit possession of the licensed articles in petitioners' manufacturing units. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Titan Medical Systems (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 133.
18. It is vehemently contended that the petitioners' liberty could not be curtailed merely on the ground of commission of an offence without any reliable and cogent material. Mere statements of certain accused in custody of Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 11 the police cannot partake the character of legal proof warranting arrest and detention of the petitioners. In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260.
19. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of the NDPS Act and the procedure enshrined thereunder must be scrupulously followed and no laxity should be permitted in this regard by relying upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 172 wherein it has been observed as follows:-
" 28. This Court cannot over-look the context in which the NDPS Act operates and particularly the factor of widespread illiteracy among persons subject to investigation for drug offences. It must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed. We are not able to find any reason as to why the empowered officer should shirk from affording a real opportunity to the suspect, by intimating to him that he has a right "that if he requires" to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, he shall be searched only in that manner. As already observed the compliance with the procedural safeguards contained in Section 50 are intended to serve dual purpose to protect a person against false accusation and frivolous charges as also to lend creditibility to the search and seizure conducted by the empowered officer. The argument that keeping in view the growing drug menace, an insistence on compliance with all the safeguards contained in Section 50 may result in more acquittals does not appeal to us. If the empowered officer fails to comply with the requirements of Section 50 and an order or acquittal is recorded on that ground, Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 12 the prosecution must thank itself for its lapses. Indeed in every case the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of judicial process may come under cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. That cannot be permitted.
29. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, it was opined : We are conscious of the fact that the police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals. Many hardcore criminals like extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organised gangs, have taken strong roots in the society. It is being said in certain quarters that with more and more liberalisation and enforcement of fundamental rights, it would lead to difficulties in the detection of crimes committed by such categories of hardened criminals by soft peddling interrogation. It is felt in those quarters that if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer. The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. This is all the more so, in view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The cure cannot, however, be worst than the disease itself. (Emphasis ours) Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 13
30. In D.K. Basu case (supra), the Court also noticed the response of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to such an argument in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 : 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), wherein that Court had said : The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law) coexist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State, however, must be right, just and fair (Emphasis supplied)
31. There is indeed, a need to protect society from criminals. The societal intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the official concerned so that the laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed."
20. While repelling the accusations of the State that petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal has not co-operated with the investigation, it is urged that the the said petitioner has duly complied with the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. It is pointed out that as per directions of this Court, petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal appeared every day before the Investigating Officer from 7.3.2014 onwards and submitted various documents, tax returns, memorandum and articles of association, registration details of vehicles etc., apart from answering several questions to the best of his knowledge and ability. It is stated that the said petitioner has also surrendered his passport and would comply with any direction of this Court.
Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 14
21. After hearing the rival contentions and taking into consideration the voluminous pleadings and documents placed on record by both sides, I find that there is no dispute as regards pharmaceutical units of the petitioners having all appropriate licences issued by the Licensing Authorities concerned for the purpose of NDPS Act as well as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There are several accusations based upon photographic and other evidence that there have been procedural lapses and lop-sided investigation in so far as the investigation, search and seizure pertaining to petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal is concerned. Even a writ petition in this regard for transfer of investigation to CBI at the behest of the petitioner is pending adjudication in this Court. This Court has already taken cognizance in the said writ petition which was filed after a liberty was granted by the Division Bench hearing the PIL concerning larger issue of drug menace in Punjab. Petitioners have relied upon certain factual aspects to show that the recovery from vehicles etc. are not at all genuine and that it may be a case of padding. It has also been urged that there may have been procedural violations in conducting search and seizure in the factory premises. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined at this stage to embark upon a mini trial or a fact finding enquiry to adjudge the veracity of the claims and counter claims of either side in bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
22. I have carefully applied my mind to the contentions of the State found in the reply that petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal has not co-operated with the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is necessary. However, a bare glance at the reply filed by the Investigating Officer would show that the plea is not tenable. In para 16 of the preliminary submissions in Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 15 the reply, eight circumstances have been relied upon by the State to seek custodial interrogation of this petitioner. None of the circumstances would justify his custodial interrogation as they relate to the non-disclosure of the petitioner about the whereabouts of the accused involved in the drug racketing; addresses and names of his other connections in drug smuggling etc. This Court genuinely feels in the special facts and circumstances of this case that such a disclosure would be per se self-incriminatory in nature and no accused can be sent to custody to facilitate the making of such a confession. The requirement of stock register and the details of the luxury cars has not deterred the Investigating Agency from filing charge-sheet against his brother Jagjit Singh Chahal on the same set of allegations in respect of very same factories. It is undisputed that petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal was subjected to extensive custodial interrogation and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. A perusal of the entire set of accusations would clearly show that they are one and the same as against both brothers in FIR No. 56 (supra). It is not the contention of the State that the role of Paramjit Singh Chahal is in any way more serious or graver than his brother Jagjit Singh Chahal against whom charge-sheet has already been filed.
23. Prima-facie substance in the averments made by the petitioners cannot be brushed aside lightly. It is no doubt true that case of such nature deserves to be dealt with a stern approach but at the same time, this Court cannot be a silent spectator, oblivious of some serious violations including concoction alleged before it. Learned state counsel has neither refuted the fact that the petitioners have no past history regarding involvement in any violation of NDPS Act nor has he doubted the authenticity of licences issued Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 16 to the petitioners' pharmaceutical units.
24. I find that in FIR No. 109 (supra), petitioner Jagjit Singh Chahal was not named. Though he was arrested, no recovery was effected from him. 25 I find merit in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that so far as the substances, namely, Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine, are concerned, the same are controlled substances by virtue of an order issued in terms of Section 9A of the NDPS Act and the alleged offence relating thereto is punishable under Section 25A thereof. Therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to these substances. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, also fairly conceded the above position.
26. In the wake of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is inclined to hold that the embargo created by the non-obstante provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is prima-facie not attracted to the peculiar factual situation of the case wherein recovery of Methamphetamine (ICE), a psychotropic substance, from the Honda Accord car, has been seriously doubted by producing photographs to belie the version of the police. The searches and seizures in the licensed premises have been seriously questioned by the petitioners while seeking transfer of investigation in the pending writ petition. I find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarija Banu(A) Janarthani alias Janani and another v. State through Inspector of Police, 2004(12) Supreme Court Cases 266, relied upon by the petitioners clearly holds that the violation of procedure, safe-guard and materials to infer false implication, may be a valid ground to lift the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to admit the accused of offences under the NDPS Act to bail. My Singh Jagjit 2014.03.22 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. M. No.8339-M of 2014 17 view is also fortified by the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh's case(supra) as extracted above. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any past antecedents which could prompt drawing of any adverse inference of their likelihood of indulging in any offence , if released on bail with strict conditions.
27. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion and allow all these three bail applications. It is accordingly directed that the petitioners be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned. Petitioners shall not leave the country without the prior permission of this Court. Till the filing of the charge-sheet,if any, petitioner Paramjit Singh Chahal would make himself available along with his Advocate at a visible distance for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Agency upon receipt of a notice in this regard.
28. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima- facie in nature for the purpose of disposal of instant bail applications only and the same would not be construed to be an expression on the merits of this case. It is further made clear that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek modification/recall of this order in case the petitioners violate the bail conditions. Consequently, the three Criminal Misc. Petitions, namely, Crl. M-8339 of 2014, Crl.M-8519 of 2014 and Crl.M-8516 of 2014 stand allowed .
March 22, 2014 ( M. JEYAPAUL )
JS JUDGE
Singh Jagjit
2014.03.22 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh