Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473
CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-21256-2023
Reserved on: 31.08.2023
Pronounced on: 18.09.2023
Joginder Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(2) CRM-M-12742-2023
Rajpal Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(3) CRM-M-32531-2023
Angrej Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggall, Advocate
for the pe oner in CRM-M-21256-2023.
Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Advocate
for the pe oner in CRM-M-12742-2023.
Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the pe oner in CRM-M-32531-2023
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta4on Sec4ons 90 25.07.2022 Can4 Ferozepur, 166, 167, 195, 471, 218 & 120-B IPC, District Ferozepur Sec ons 21 & 59 of NDPS Act and Sec on 13 of Preven on of Corrup on Act 1 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases
1. The pe oner(s) incarcerated for viola ng the above-men oned provisions of Narco cs Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR cap oned above, have come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2. As per the bail pe ons and custody cer ficate dated 29.08.2023, one another case is pending against all the pe oners, which was registered a@er the registra on of the present case.
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Sta on
1. 99 01.08.2022 22/61/85 of NDPS Act Kulgari
& 212, 216, 120-B IPC
3. The pe oner(s) contends that the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. While opposing the bail, the conten on on behalf of the State is that the quan ty of contraband involved in the case falls into the commercial category, and given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
5. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail pe on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa on Reports, wherein the bail pe oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu ons resul ng in acqui4al or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu on stands withdrawn, or prosecu on filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
6. The allega ons are that in the evening of July, 2022, Ashok Kumar i.e. brother of complainant had sent one of his employees, namely, Gautam from Ludhiana to Moga in a taxi driven by Kanwaljit Singh to bring payment of Rs.86.00 Lakhs. At about 7.30/8.00 p.m. his mobile got switch off. Later on, he learnt that on the direc ons of Inspector Parminder Singh Bajwa, the police officials stopped a car which was plying as a taxi with a yellow number plate at Moga Ferozepur road in which Gautam and driver of the taxi were present with cash of Rs.86 Lakh, police arrested them for possessing 1 Kg heroin and Rs.5 Lakh cash. Complainant alleged that accused i.e. police official planted false 2 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases recovery on the driver Kanwaljit and Gautam in order to misappropriate Rs.81 Lakh belonging to the brother of the complainant.
7. Brief facts of the case given by police are taken from para Nos. 4 to 10 of reply dated 29.08.2023, which reads as under:-
"4. That brief facts of the case are that complainant got recorded his statement with the police that his younger brother is doing the business of money laundering. Ashok Kumar informed the Gove complainant that on 20.07.2022 at about 5.30 PM he sent his one employee namely Gautam from Ludhiana to Moga on a rental taxi driven by Kanwaljit Singh. Gautam has to take payment of Rs.86 lakhs from Moga. At about 7.30/8 PM phone of Gautam was switched off. Lateron he came to know that Parminder Singh Bajwa, ASI Angrej Singh and HC Joginder Singh in connivance with their other companions had apprehended said Gautam and taxi driver Kanwaljit Singh resident of Ludhiana and he believes that Inspector Parminder Singh Bajwa and his companions have misappropriated the amount of Rs.81 lakhs out of Rs.86 lakhs and falsely implicated said Gautam and taxi driver Kanwaljit Singh in false case registered u/s NDPS Act at PS Can8 Ferozepur, in which they had alleged that one kilogram heroin and drug money of Rs.5 lakhs has been recovered from them. Ashok Kumar disclosed that his employee Gautam and taxi driver Kanwaljit Singh are innocent. Inspector Parminder Singh Bajwa, ASI Angrej Singh, HC Joginder Singh in connivance with their other companions with inten;on to grab the amount embezzled by them have registered said false case against them.
5. That a<er registra;on of the instant case, inves;ga;on of this case was marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guruharsahai. During inves;ga;on of the case ASI Narinderpal Singh No.828/Ferozepur, ASI Sukhdev Singh No.365/Ferozepur, ASI Sukhwinder Singh No.239/Ferozepur, ASI Baldev Raj No.1257/Ferozepur, ASI Mohan Lal no.1112/Ferozepur, Sr. Constable Gurmej Singh No.588/Fzr, Sr. Ct. Jarmanjit Singh No.978/Fzr and PHG Sandeep Singh No.22759, all employees of An;-Narco;c Cell, Ferozepur were joined. ASI Narinderpal Singh got recorded his statement that on 20.07.2022 at about 3 AM, as per direc;ons of Inspector Parminder Singh, ASI Narinderpal Singh, ASI Angrej Singh, ASI Rajpal, HC Joginder Singh, Sr. Ct. Gurmej Singh, Sr. Ct Jarmanjit Singh reached residen;al house of Inspector Parminder Singh on Swi< car No. PB05AB-5092 of Sr. Ct. Jarmanjit Singh. Wherefrom HC Joginder Singh alongwith ASI Angrej Singh and ASI Rajpal Singh moved towards Kot Ise Khan on E;os car of ASI Rajpal Singh. At about 4 AM ASI Narinderpal Singh, Sr. Ct.3
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases Jarmanjit Singh, Sr. Ct. GurmejSingh, Inspector Parminder Singh and private driver Deep moved towards Tarn Taran on Scorpio vehicle No. PB08CW0024 of Inspector Parminder Singh. On the way Inspector Parminder Singh remained into touch with second police party through phone. Police party headed by Inspector Parminder Singh stopped on a Dhaba a<er crossing Tarn Taran. A<er some;me second police party headed by ASI Angrej Singh alongwith one unknown person also reached at said Dhaba. A<er staying about 3 hours at said Dhaba police party stopped at Sandhu Dhaba and stayed there for about 2 hours they moved from said Dhaba and stopped at another Dhaba. A<er taking meal at about 12 noon, Inspector Parminder Singh directed the police party that they have to go to Moga. As some mechanical issue was arisen in the E;os vehicle of ASI Rajpal Singh due to which ASI Angrej Singh, HC Joginder Singh Private person were shi<ed into Scorpio vehicle of Inspector Parminder Singh and Sr. Ct. Gurmej Singh was shi<ed into said car of ASI Rajpal Singh. A<er reaching at Bus stand Moga, Inspector Parminder Singh got sit another private person into his scorpio and moved towards Ferozepur Road. A<er crossing Moga City they parked their Scorpio vehicle at one side. A<er some;me other employees namely ASI Baldev Raj, ASI Sukhwinder Singh, ASI Mohan Lal, ASI Sukhev Singh and PHG Sandeep Singh also came there on the Swi< car of ASI Mohan Lal. At about 7.30 PM Inspector Parminder Singh received a telephonic call and directed the police party that they have to apprehended one E;os car No.3563 having yellow colour number plate and is coming from Moga side. A<er some;me said E;os car crossed the police party, then police party as per direc;ons of Inspector Parminder Singh started following said E;os. On the way under bridge situated at Moga-Ferozepur Road, police party got stopped said E;os vehicle in which two youngmen having haircut were travelling. Inspector Parminder Singh, ASI Angrej Singh and HC Joginder Singh got alighted both said persons and handed over them to the police party. In the mean;me, police party of ASI Baldev Raj also came there. Then as per direc;ons of Inspector Parminder Singh, ASI Narinderpal Singh, private driver Deep. Sr. Ct. Jarmanjit Singh, PHG Sandeep Singh and two persons apprehended from E;os moved towards Ferozepur and Inspector Parminder Singh also directed them not to conduct any enquiry from said two persons. Whereas Inspector Parminder Singh alongwith ASI Angrej Singh and HC Joginder Singh stated travelling in said E;os car. In presence of ASI Narinderpal Singh and others nothings was recovered from said two persons.
6. That during inves;ga;on of the case it was found that no heroin was recovered from possession of Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh as alleged in FIR 4 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases No.88/2022 PS Ferozepur Can8, infact, it was found that pe;;oner ASI Angrej Singh, in connivance with Inspector Parminder Singh Bajwa and other co- accused apprehended said Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh from Moga along with their E;os Car in which Rs.86 lakhs were stored and took them to Ferozepur, where they fabricated a false occurrence and threatened said Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh and with inten;on to grab said huge amount, they had threatened said Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh a<er that they called the DSP (Inv), Ferozepur and shown a false recovery of 1 Kg heroin and Rs.5 lakhs upon them and they have also grabbed the huge amount of Rs.81 lakhs.
7. That during inves;ga;on of the case on 27.07.2022 ASI Rajpal Singh (Pe;;oner) was also nominated in the present case. On 27.07.2022 ASI Angrej Singh, HC Joginder Singh and ASI Rajpal Singh (Pe;;oner) were arrested by the police.
8. That during inves;ga;on of the case, on 31.07.2022 in the evening ;me search of residen;al house (rental) of Inspector Parminder Singh was conducted in presence of Duty Magistrate and during search 3710 Tramadol tablets and 4 kg 709 grams intoxicant powder and 25 empty covers which were torn from one side and detail of amount was men;oned on it, were also recovered. In this regard separate case bearing FIR No.99 Dated 01.08.2022 U/s 22 NDPS Act PS Kulgari has been registered.
9. That during inves;ga;on of the case on 02.08.2022, it is found that Karaj Singh @Kaji son of Joginder Singh resident of Bas; Smund village Sherpur Taiban, PS Dharamkot had delivered Rs.86 lakhs to Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh through Creta car No. PB91P-7777. On this said Karaj Singh has also been nominated as accused in the present case and on same day Creta car No. PB91P-7777 has also been recovered by the police.
10. That lateron, on 08.08.2022 inves;ga;on of this case has been transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, in compliance of order no.3350-53/Crime/Inv-5 Dated 01.08.2022 issued by the Director, Bureau of Inves;ga;on, Punjab, Chandigarh."
8. A perusal of the reply and other documents clearly point out towards the role of all the three pe oners, namely, Joginder Singh, Rajpal and Angrej Singh as co- conspirators with Inspector Parminder Singh Bajwa in plan ng false recovery and misappropria ng amount and as such being police officials, who were member of police party and deputed to enforce the law became its violator. Thus, the pe oners are not en tled to bail.
55 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases
9. Counsel represen ng all the three pe oner also seek bail on the ground of parity of co-accused, namely, Karaj Singh.
10. A perusal of the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-61137-2022, this Court had granted bail to Karaj Singh because the allega ons against him were only handing over Rs.86.00 Lakhs to Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh. Thus, by no stretch of imagina on, the pe oners' case can be considered on parity with that of Karaj Singh.
11. The pe oner counsel further argued that the search and seizure memo of the said false FIR contains signatures of Dy.S.P. and he should also be arraigned as an accused. In the reply, the role of Dy.S.P. has been men oned and it has been specifically stated that the vic ms Gautam and Kanwaljit Singh were threatened by pe oners to make a wrong statement before Dy.S.P. in paragraph 14 of the reply dated 29.08.2023 filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, it has been clarified that in the inves ga on, no evidence came on record against Dy.S.P. Fateh Singh. Thus, the pe oners' grievance is simply to mislead the inves ga on and shi@ the burden on an officer, who has been declared innocent by a Superior Officer. The pe oners are trying to shi@ their blame on other people to get bail. The allega ons are heinous, grave and would break the confidence not on the society but on the en re police force. Even on these tac cs, they are not en tled to bail. Even if all the allega ons are taken to be false, s ll no case for bail is made out. Needless to say that the evidence which has been brought before this Court is sufficient to deny bail.
12. Thus, the quan ty allegedly involved in this case i.e. 1 Kg heroin planted by pe oners upon vic m is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the pe oner to sa sfy the twin condi ons put in place by the Legislature under Sec on 37 of the NDPS Act.
13. The stand that the accused is in custody for sufficient me is also not legal grounds to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
14. The grounds taken in the bail pe on do not shi@ the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The pe oner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the stringent condi ons placed in the statute by the legislature under sec on 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the pe oner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.
66 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473 CRM-M-21256-2023 and other connected cases
15. A perusal of the bail pe on and the documents a4ached, primafacie points towards the pe oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe oner; this court refrains from doing so.
16. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
The pe44on is dismissed. All pending applica ons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the pe oner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarcera on, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Feb. 29, 2024, of which the prosecu on evidence be completed by Dec. 31, 2023, and latest by Jan. 31, 2023, and the remaining me to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direc ons in this regard. It is clarified that if expedi ng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by men oning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condi on that neither the pe oner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tac cs to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expedi ng the trial shall stand automa cally recalled by resor ng to Sec on 362, read with Sec on 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to a4end the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date men oned above, and if the delay is not a4ributable to the pe oner, then the pe oner may file an applica on for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expedi ously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
18.09.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122473
7
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2023 01:47:44 :::