Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232
2023:PHHC:120232
CRM-M-40906-2022 -1-
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40906-2022
Date of Decision 12.09.2023
LOVEPREET SINGH @ LOVPREET SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 18.08.2022 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act later on) at Police Station City Morinda, District Rupnagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty at the Kharar-Ludhiana Bypass Road Morinda on the T-point going towards Village Datarpur, a Swift Dzire car came from the side of Village Datarpur. On seeing the blockade, the driver of the car stopped near the blockade and tried to turn the car back. The police party apprehended the driver. A bulky transparent plastic polythene bag (with a zip) through which 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -2- heroin was visible was found lying near the gear lever. On enquiry, the driver of the car disclosed his name as Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi son of Dilbagh Singh and the person sitting on the adjoining seat disclosed his name as Sarabjot Singh @ Tota son of Major Singh. From the transparent polythene packet, 20 grams of heroin came to be recovered.
During the course of investigation, Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota disclosed the names of Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi, Devraj @ Debu, Jagpal Singh @ Gora who were nominated in the present FIR and the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi was arrested and from the plastic polythene bag which she had thrown away, 80 grams of heroin came to be recovered. She also got recovered the proceeds of crime in the shape of gold and silver jewellery, cash and vehicles from the store room of her house. Similarly, Devraj @ Debu and Jagpal Singh @ Gora were also arrested.
During the course of her interrogation, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi disclosed that Kuljit Singh Dhanoa of her village was selling drugs and he was a friend of her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh (petitioner). Both Kuljit Singh Dhanoa and her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh were dealing in drugs. On the basis of the said statement, Kuljit Singh Dhanoa and Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh were nominated in the present FIR.
2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -3- After the completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi, Devraj @ Debu, Jagpal @ Gora, Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota.
3. The petitioner had sought the concession of anticipatory bail and on 08.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
"The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 18.08.2022 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) with Police Station City Morinda, District Runagar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi son of Dilbagh Singh and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota son of Major Singh were arrested with 20 grams of heroin. They disclosed the name of one Sukhwinder Kaur, who was arrested and a recovery of 80 grams of heroin was effected from her. During the course of her interrogation, she disclosed that her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh (the present petitioner) was an accomplice with her. He contends that other than this evidence, there is no evidence available on the file against him. He contends that the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar, 2022(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991 would not apply to the facts of the present case as the recovery from each of the accused is of non-commercial quantity of contraband. Even otherwise, the petitioner is of the age of 19 years and no other case under the NDPS Act stands registered against him.
Notice of motion for 21.11.2022.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -4- In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C:-
i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any.
Meanwhile, State counsel is directed to file an affidavit as to the exact role of the petitioner along with the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing."
4. The said order was extended from time to time and the petitioner also joined investigation. However, the petitioner was arrested in FIR No.41 dated 26.05.2023 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, Police Station City Morinda, Rupnagar when he was found in possession of 82 grams of intoxicating powder. In the said case, he has been granted the concession of interim bail awaiting the report of the chemical examiner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which has very little 4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -5- evidentiary value. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner had joined investigation. In the other case registered against the petitioner bearing FIR No.41 dated 26.05.2023 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act Police Station City Morinda, Rupnagar, the petitioner had been granted the concession of interim bail awaiting the report of the chemical examiner. As the petitioner had joined investigation in the instant FIR and had been granted the concession of interim regular bail in FIR No.41 dated 26.05.2023, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail moreso when a co-accused namely Kuljit Singh Dhanoa had been granted the similar concession. 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 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020.
6. A short reply dated 12.09.2023 by way of an affidavit of Manjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Morinda, District Rupnagar has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. He contends that the petitioner 5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -6- does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In fact, Sukwhinder Kaur @ Sukhi from whom the recovery of 80 grams of heroin came to be effected was the mother of the petitioner. She has admitted during her interrogation that the petitioner along with Kuljit Singh Dhanoa were dealing in the sale of drugs. Despite, the petitioner having joined investigation in the present case, during the pendency of this petition itself, he came to be apprehended in FIR No.41 dated 26.05.2023 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act Police Station City Morinda, Rupnagar which clearly shows that the petitioner has no respect for the law and is, in fact, a habitual offender. Therefore, no concession can be shown to him. As regards bail being granted to Kuljit Singh Dhanoa, he points out that other than the instant FIR, no other case stands registered against Kuljit Singh Dhanoa and therefore, his case is different from that of the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the antecedents of the petitioner did not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-
"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.
6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -7-
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 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -8- Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.
[emphasis supplied]
9. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was held as under:-
"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."
(emphasis supplied)
10. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-
"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 8 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -9- 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."
9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -10- 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.
(emphasis supplied)
11. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:-
10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -11- "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.
9. When 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.
10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(emphasized supplied)
12. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645- 2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:-
"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 co-accused 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, 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -12- 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 co-accused. 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 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)
152. In 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.
(emphasis supplied) 12 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -13-
13. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement of a co-
accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be granted regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary view was taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court held that where an accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested accused and the person named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said accused. In Ranjit Singh (supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) it has been held by this 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.
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, other than the present FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused who happens to be his mother, the petitioner is also an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act bearing FIR No.41 dated 26.05.2023 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act Police Station City Morinda, Rupnagar which came to be registered during the pendency of the present petition. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been
13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232 2023:PHHC:120232 CRM-M-40906-2022 -14- implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency.
15. In 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. On the contrary, in such cases, where anticipatory bail is sought the custodial interrogation is certainly necessary even though the accused may have joined investigation at an earlier stage.
16. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
17. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
12.09.2023
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120232
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 15:00:36 :::