Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amreek Singh@Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 August, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111
1
CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21497-2023
Reserved on: 24.07.2023
Pronounced on: 01.08.2023
Amreek Singh @ Amrik Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
101 24.08.2020 STF Wing Phase IV, 22-C, 25, 29 & 31-A of NDPS
Mohali, District SAS Act 1985, 201 IPC and 207
Nagar Mohali (having of MV Act
jurisdiction at District
Sangrur)
1. The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of transporting 45,000 tablets of tramadol and 450 vials containing Narcotic syrup in conspiracy with his co-accused, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2. In paragraphs 18 & 19 of the bail petition, the accused declares his criminal history and even custody certificate mentions his criminal antecedents, which over all are as follows:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station 1 54 07.05.2017 61 of Excise Act Pasiana 2 250 28.06.2011 61/1/14 of Excise Act Sangrur Kotwali 3 167 05.06.2006 15 of NDPS Act Samana 4 28 06.03.2020 22, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act Dhanaula, District Barnala
3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
11 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111 2 CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111
4. While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity 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 petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution 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. A perusal of the petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.
7. On August 24, 2020, the police received a secret information that Sinder Ram @ Chhinda, Kuldeep Singh, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky and Avtar Singh deal in narcotics in their cars bearing registration No. HR-51BA-1783 and UP-171-8125. After receipt of this information police laid a naka and caught Sinder Ram and Kuldeep Singhin a car bearing registration No.UP-171-8125, along with contraband, which when counted, it found approximately 45,000 narcotic pills make Tramadol Hydrochloride, Clovidol-100 SR, 12500 narcotic pills make Carisoprodol (Carisoma) and 450 vials containing narcotic syrup make WINCIREX. Police also found involvement of other three accused Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky, Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh (present petitioner). After arresting the accused, the police started investigation and found call details with mobile locations which prima facie linked the petitioner with other accused from whose possession the police recovered the contraband. The police also found that the car from which the intoxicant were recovered was owned by the present petitioner and the contraband was being transported by the other accused in his connivance. An analysis of the evidence collected against the petitioner and considering the contraband being commercial quantity and prima facie sufficient evidence linking the petitioner with the contraband, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail on merits.
8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
22 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111 3 CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111
9. The petitioner also claims bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused/Kuldeep Singh. This Court had granted bail to the co-accused on two grounds. Firstly as mentioned in para 5 of the bail order dated 11.04.2023 passed in CRM-M-40979-2020, petitioner's custody was more than 02 years & 06 months as such he was entitled to bail based on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. Secondly it was explicitly mentioned in para 2 of the above said order that accused has no criminal history and this fact was not rebutted by the state counsel. To the contrary, present petitioner had criminal history including of NDPS cases. Furthermore his custody is under 02 years & 06 months, as such he is neither entitled to bail on this ground nor on parity.
10. In State of Punjab v Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [14]. The provisions of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act and are applicable for effecting search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act also. However, when an empowered officer carrying on the investigation including search, seizure or arrest under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drugs or the psychotropic substance, then he must follow from that stage onwards the provisions of the NDPS Act and continue the investigation as provided thereunder. If the investigating officer is not an empowered officer then it is expected of him that he must inform the empowered officer under the NDPS Act, who should thereafter proceed from the stage in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. In Balbir Singh's case after referring to a number of judgments, the Bench opined that failure to comply with the provisions of Cr.P.C. in respect of search and seizure and particularly those of Sections 100, 102, 103 and 165 per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such a violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. While appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and evaluate the evidence on record keeping that in view.
11. The petition states that the quantity of substance allegedly recovered is marginally above the commercial quantity. This submission is more compassionate than legal. Once the quantity is greater than commercial, it is immaterial for the purpose of bail. Once it is in statute, Judges have no latitude. Given the legislative mandate under section 37 of the NDPS Act, an accused is not entitled to bail if the quantity is marginally above the commercial quantity.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigator conducted search and seizure violating sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS.
33 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111 4 CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111
13. Whether the Investigator complied with the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is a question of fact to be adjudicated in the trial. However, before this court treats the compliances as illegal, the prosecution needs an opportunity to prove that they had complied with the mandatory provisions per law. Such stage would come only during the trial and certainly not at the bail stage, where it would be hit by the maxim Audi alteram partem. The exception to this would be applicable only when the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is apparent on the face of the special report under section 57 of the NDPS Act and other documents of search and seizure, and in the opinion of the court, the lapse is non-rectifiable, after recording a finding that it is an incurable defect, the court might consider granting bail on such violations.
14. In State of H.P. v. Prithi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [3]. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified, at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, in discharging the accused, even before the trial was conducted on merits, on the ground that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with. This Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [(1994)3 SCC 299] : (AIR 1994 SCW 1802) has considered the provisions of the Act. Section 50 has been held to be mandatory. In paragraph 16, this Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the empowered or the authorised officer to inform the suspect that, if so required, he would be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and search would be conducted in his presence. It was imperative on the part of the Officer to inform the person of the above right and if he failed to do the same, it amounted to violation of the requirement of Section 50 of the Act. It was held that when the person was searched he must have been aware of his right and that it could be done only if the authorised or empowered Officer informed him of the same. Accordingly, this Court by implication read the obligation on the part of authorised Officer to inform the person to be searched of his right to information that he could be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. In Saiyad Mohd. Saiyaad Umar Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [1995(3) JT SC 489] a three-Judge Bench of this Court had reiterated the above view and held that having regard to the grave consequences that might entail the possession of illicit articles under the Act, viz., the shifting of the onus to the accused and the severe punishment to which he became liable, the Legislature had enacted safeguards contained in Section 50. Compliance of the safeguards in Section 50 is mandatory obliging the Officer concerned to inform the person to be searched of his right to demand that search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The possession of illicit article has to be satisfactorily established before the Court. The Officer who conducts search must state in his evidence that he had informed the accused of his right to demand, while he is searched, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the accused had not chosen to so demand. If no evidence to that effect is given, the Court must presume that the person searched was not informed of the protection the law gives him 4 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111 5 CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111 and must find that possession of illicit articles was not established. The presumption under Article 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, that the official duty was properly performed, therefore, does not apply. It is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinise the evidence and satisfy that the accused had been informed by the concerned Officer that he had a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the person had not chosen to so demand.
[4]. It is to be seen whether the accused has been afforded such a right and whether the authorised Officer has violated the mandatory requirement, as a question of fact, has to be proved at the trial. In Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [(1974) 1 SCC 345] : (AIR 1974 SC
348) a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that power of search and seizure, is, in any system of jurisprudence, an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. A search by itself is not a restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property, though seizure is a temporary restriction to the right of possession and enjoyment of the property seized. However, the seizure will be only temporary and limited for the purpose of the investigation. The power of search and seizure is an accepted norm is our criminal law envisaged in Sections 96 to 103 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, "the Code"]. The Evidence Act permits relevancy as the only test of admissibility of evidence. The evidence obtained under an illegal search and seizure does not exclude relevant evidence on that ground. It is wrong to invoke the spirit of Constitution to exclude such evidence. The decisions of the American Supreme Court spelling out certain Constitutional protections in regard to search and seizure are not applicable to exclude the evidence obtained on an illegal search. Courts in India refuse to exclude relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search and seizure. When the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search and seizure, is not liable to be shut out. Search and seizure are not a new weapon in the armoury of those whose duty it is to maintain social security in its broadest sense. If the safeguards are generally on the lines adopted by the Code, they would be regarded as adequate and render the restrictions imposed as reasonable measures.
[7]. It would thus be settled law that every deviation from the details of the procedure prescribed for search, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that search by the police renders the recovery of the articles pursuant to the illegal search, irrelevant evidence nor the discovery of the fact inadmissible at the trial. Weight to be attached to such evidence depends on facts and circumstances in each case. The Court is required to scan the evidence with care and to act upon it when it is proved and the Court would hold that the evidence would be relied upon.
15. The stand that the accused is in custody for sufficient time is also not legal grounds to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
55 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111 6 CRM-M-21497-2023 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098111
16. The grounds taken in the bail petition do not shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.
17. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
The petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand closed. However, considering the petitioner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceration, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining time 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 directions in this regard. It is clarified that if expediting 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 mentioning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 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 attend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
01.08.2023
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098111
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2023 03:08:57 :::