AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n addition to other provisions of FIR, came up before this Court under Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973, seeking bail. 2. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions argued that in case this Court grants bail to the petitioner, they would have no objection to any condition whatsoever and also refers to para no. 11 of the petition in which it was explicitly mentioned that the petitioner would comply with all the conditions imposed by this Court. The petitioner contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 3. While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category, and they have collected sufficient evidence that prima facia points towards petitioner's dealings with the drugs trade and the international mafia. FACTS: 4. Facts of the case are being taken from a reply dated 18.10.2023 filed by the concerned Superintendent of Police, which reads as under: - "[5]. That the brief background of the matter is that case FIR No.35 dated 05.03.2015 was registered under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, Fazilka. Before filing a police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], on May 8, 2015, the petitioner had filed CWP No.8999 of 2015 in this Court, seeking an investigation by CBI and other reliefs. On July 14, 2016, the State informed the Court that the petitioner had no cause of action to maintain and continue with this writ petition as the petitioner was not an accused in this case and the trial was already going on in which two witnesses had already been examined. Subsequently on Mar 16, 2017, due to subsequent events, the petitioner withdrew the CWP, without prejudice to approach again if the need arose. 6. In the trial, the testimonies of PW4 Ajmer Singh & PW5 Jaswant Singh were recorded, and on July 06, 2016, a request was made by the prosecution to re-call them, which the Trial Court declined. 7. In between vide order dated June 11, 2017, the Government of Punjab had constituted another Special Investigation Team headed by SSP Fazilka to investigate the matter further. 8. The trial against ten accused persons against whom challan had been presented commenced in the Court of Special Judge Fazilka. At the final stage of the first tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable. [40]. (II) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial? The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion." 12. On February 9, 2023, a two-member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: - "[1]. Indisputably, in the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f drugs or to present charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. PC. b) The passports of both the applicants Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Manish Kumar be released to them forthwith against proper receipt and while retaining the photocopies of those passports on the file for further reference." 15. After that, on May 3, 2023, the trial Court made the following observations: - "[1]. Main file has been received with the record of trial arising out of FIR No.35 dated 05.03.2015 under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 NDPS Act, Section 25/54 Arms Act and Section 66 IT Act 2000 which has been perused and considered. [2]. By way of separate detailed orders dated 13.04.2023 and 17.04.2023 respectively, proceedings of this case against additional accused Sukhpal Singh Khaira, Manish Kumar and Joga Singh have been dropped in view of the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeals No. 885 and 886 of 2019 on the basis of ratio of judgment dated 05.12.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in titled as Sukhpal Singh Khaira versus The State of Punjab. By way of ratio decidendi of this judgment, it has been held by the constituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Investigator gathered evidence of family relations between him and the petitioner. Accused Gurdev Singh had disclosed to the Investigator that the petitioner had assured him of all help and protection in case he was trapped in any drug trafficking matter. In return, Gurdev Singh (A-6) would provide funding to the elections of the petitioner and money as and when he needed it. 18. The petitioner, Sukhpal Singh Khera, was arraigned as accused on 28.09.2023 and arrested on the same morning. 19. Facts leading to the arrest of the petitioner given by the State in its reply dated 18.10.2023 filed by the concerned Superintendent of Police, the relevant portion of the same extracted as below: - [10]. That during the pendency of the trial, an application dated 21.09.2017 was moved under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon Joga Singh, PSO of Sukhpal Singh Khaira, Sukhpal Singh Khaira, Manish, PA, Charanjit Kaur and Major Singh Bajwa. The aforesaid application was moved, inter-alia, on the following grounds :- (i) During investigation of the case, accused Gurdev Singh, Ex Chairman, revealed that he had family relations with Sukhpal Singh Khai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Sections 41 & 80 CrPC, 1973. In the writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged his arrest as void ab initio on the grounds of illegality and violation of Supreme Court judgments passed in this FIR itself, in which the application filed by the State Government under Section 319 CrPC for summoning the petitioner was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, although it had been allowed by the Sessions court and affirmed by the High court. 21. During the pendency of the above-mentioned criminal writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court their intention to also file a regular bail petition, and they wanted the same to be filed before this Court for the reason that the writ petition challenging the illegality of the arrest was being argued before this Court. After arguing extensively, the petitioner's counsel submitted that he was seeking seeking interim bail under section 482 CrPC, 1973, and he may be permitted to withdraw the said prayer and file a separate bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, straightway to this Court. The petitioner's counsel further clarified tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be traced, he was mentioned as a proclaimed offender. The petitioner was neither named as an accused in the FIR nor in the report under Section 173 CrPC. 26. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to para 5.1 of the bail petition and argued that the petitioner had been arrested because he parted ways with the Aam Aadmi Party [AAP], which is now the ruling party in Punjab. He referred to para 5.6 of the bail petition and stated that it is regime revenge by fabricating, padding, and creating false evidence. He further referred to portions of para 5 to substantiate his submission. On this, Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Gurminder Singh, Ld. Advocate General for the State of Punjab vehemently denied such allegations and termed them as false, baseless, and figments of imaginations, and further stated that FIR was registered when the present ruling party (AAP) was not even in power; as such, the allegations are simply to divert attention from the petitioner's involvement in the heinous crime and his connection with Pakistani smugglers and foreign handlers. An analysis of these submissions leads to an outcome that the allegations a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns situated alike as the deponent having fear of false implication due to political vendetta." (Emphasis supplied) 28. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted no leave and liberty to the State of Punjab to conduct any further inquiry/investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Further, no application for review or recall of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ever been filed or pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Punjab, and it is not discernible how, why, and under what circumstances could the said Court issue any direction for further inquiry/investigation qua the petitioner as also to file a charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC once the Supreme Court had nullified the proceedings initiated against him. 29. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that prosecution could not take into consideration the evidence which was part of the trial at first stage and this fact is very much clear from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of petitioner, while deciding the reference and had stated as follows: "The trial court has the power to summon ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anted in the famous Bhola Drug case. The technical details about the movement and Call Detail Records and the conversation between Gurdev Singh, Charanjit Kaur, Major Singh Bajwa, and Sukhpal Singh Khaira confirmed his involvement and depicted the nexus among the members of the drug cartel. The SIT recommended an investigation based on the suspicious role of Sukhpal Singh Khaira and submitted its report on 14.03.2016 to IGP Bathinda. The fact that despite such a report and its acceptance, he could successfully avoid lawful investigation into the crime and his involvement is grounds for denying him bail. 32. Ld. Advocate General, Punjab, submits that the investigation was continuing, and it was explicitly mentioned in the police report under Section 173 CrPC that one person was an absconder, and an investigation was going on. It cannot be said that the remaining would be absolved simply because prosecution was launched against some of the accused. He further submits that the Investigating Agency was previously siding with the petitioner. Despite the availability of the clinching evidence, they chose not to prosecute him as an accused. He submitted that crime never dies, and now t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on 01.12.2015 and was ultimately arrested on 16.04.2019, against whom a charge sheet under Section 173(8) of CrPC was filed on 31.08.2019. The trial of Anil Kumar @ Neelu is pending in the Special Court, Fazilka, Panjab. The reply also states that the investigation conducted by SIT collected massive evidence of the accused being part of an international drug cartel and added offence under Section 27-A and 27-B of NDPS Act vide rapat no.5 dated 28.09.1993, the involvement of the following nine persons who are facilitating drug trafficking in the State of Punjab as well as cross the border on an international level: - (i) Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (ii) Kashmir Sing @ Billa (iii) Major Singh Bajwa (iv) HC Joga Singh No. 4/24 IRB (v) Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Petitioner) (vi) Charanjit Kaur (vii) Baljit Kaur @ Bindo (viii) Manish PA (ix) Harjit Singh, PSO 34. Since this Court is adjudicating bail petition, the evidence whatever gathered by the State before the consideration of their application under Section 319 CrPC, that is not relevant at this stage in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. This C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable satisfaction of its rigors. 36. Ld. Advocate General submitted that mere reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to curb the drug menace. It is further to be noticed that the provisions are couched in negative language, meaning that to grant bail, the Court needs to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense. The burden of proof is also on the petitioner to satisfy the Court about his non-involvement in the case. While interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court must be guided by the objective sought to be achieved by putting these stringent conditions. The movement and call details chart of Gurdev Singh, Charanjit Kaur, and Major Singh Bajwa (Drug cartel handler), nexus within the cartel and conversation C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility merely of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Criminal Procedure Code when sub-section (2) of Section 167 is expressly made applicable by the N.D.P.S. Act ? The non-obstante clause at the beginning of clauses (a) and (b) thereof are inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of the Code. Clause (a) makes every offence punishable under this Act to be cognizable. Clause (b) imposes limitations on granting of bail specified therein which are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure on granting of bail as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 37. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) specifies the two limitations on granting of bail, namely, (1) an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application and (2) satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that these limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 indicate that the applicability of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Criminal Procedure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nion of India v. Merajuddin, (1999) 6 SCC 43, a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court while cancelling the bail, observed in Para 3, as follows, The High Court appears to have completely ignored the mandate of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act while granting him bail. The High Court overlooked the prescribed procedure. 42. In Supdt. Narcotics Central Bureau Chennai v R Paulsamy, (2000) 9 SCC 549, decided on 30 Mar 2000, Supreme Court holds, [6]. In the light of Section 37 of the Act no accused can be released on bail when the application is opposed by the public prosecutor unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is unfortunate that matters which could be established only in offence regarding compliance with Secs. 52 and 57 have been pre-judged by the learned single Judge at the stage of consideration for bail. The minimum which learned single Judge should have taken into account was the factual presumption in law position that official acts have been regularly performed. Such presumption can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot consider the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 45. In Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, (Decided on 11- 03-2004) a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court holds, [7]. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail. [46]. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby. 48. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [6]. As the provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another v. Kamla Mills Ltd., 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 265 : (2003)6 SCC 315)." [11]. The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. [12]. Additionally, the Court has to record a finding that while on bail the accused is not likely to commit any offence and there should also exist some materials to come to such a conclusion. 49. In N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Supreme Court holds, [9]. ... The limitations on granting of bail come in on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 738, (Decided on 28-07-2017) Supreme Court holds, [7]. ... Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences enumerated under the said Section. They are :- (1) In the case of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19, (2) Under Section 24, (3) Under Section 27A and (4) Of offences involving commercial quantity. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the fourth factor namely, commercial quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in case, the court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. or any other enactment. (1) The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence; (2) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. [8]. There is no such consideration with regard to the mandatory requirements, while releasing the respondents on bail. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. But other than the few WhatsApp messages and his own statement which he has resiled from, there is very little other evidence. At this stage it appears that the appellant may not have even been aware of the entire conspiracy because even the prosecution story is that the brother himself did not know what was loaded on the ship till he was informed by the owner of the vessel. Even when the heroin was loaded in the ship it was supposed to go towards Egypt and that would not have been a crime under the NDPS Act. It seems that Suprit Tiwari and other 7 crew members then decided to make much more money by bringing the ship to India with the intention of disposing of the drugs in India. During this period the Master Suprit Tiwari took the help of Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan Sheikh who had to deliver the consignment to Suleman who had to arrange the money after delivery. The main allegation made against the appellant is that he sent the list of the crew members after deleting the names of 4 Iranians and EsthekharAlam to Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan Sheikh through WhatsApp with a view to make their disembarkation process easier. Even if we take the prosecution case at the highest,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was habitual offender only on the basis of statements of co- accused, which would be inadmissible. There were no materials against the petitioner apart from the statements of the co-accused. [7]. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner on stringent conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court, including but not limited to the conditions with regard to sureties, bail bonds etc. Apart from reporting to the investigating authority on a regular basis, the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without leave of the Court. 58. In UOI through NBC, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, (Decided on 22-09-2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [28]. As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624, a two-judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a tru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d A-1 to A-3, when even as per the prosecution, scientific reports in respect of the said devices is still awaited. 60. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, (Decided on 10-01-2022), a three-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [11]. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in subsection (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. [13]. The expression "reasonable ground" came up for discussion in "State of Kerala and others v. Rajesh and others" (2020) 12 SCC 122 and this Court has observed as below: "20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 63. In Ankush Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online P&H 1259, a single bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court observed, [43]. However, more problem lies with the second part of Section 37 (1) (b)(ii), which requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for declaring that the accused is not likely to commit 'any offence' while on bail. This part of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) militates against the rationale and reasoning considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case (supra), wherein it has implied that if such language extends in operation not only to the offence under the special Act but also to any offence under any other legal provision where such conditions are not required to be applied for grant of bail then such language enters the realm of unconstitutionality. Therefore, this language is also arbitrary on that count because it r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility of future conduct and mental state of accused, which is required under second part of Section 37(1)(b)(ii). It is the reasonable 'satisfaction' on the basis of the material on record which is required. By extension of any human logic, it cannot be said that the Court can record, any degree of satisfaction, based on some reasonable ground, as to whether a person would commit an offence or whether he would not commit an offence after coming out of the custody. Neither the Court would be able to record a satisfaction that the accused would, likely, commit the offence after coming out of the custody, nor would the Court be able to record a satisfaction that the accused would not commit any offence after coming out of the custody. Hence, the second part of Section 37(i)(b) (ii) requires a humanly impossible act on the part of the Court. Since the second part of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) requires a satisfaction of the Court, which is impossible by extension of any human logic, therefore, this is an irrational requirement. There is no rational way for a Court to record its satisfaction or to arrive at this satisfaction qua possible future conduct and mental state of an accused. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submits that even if these call records are not intercepted for tapping, mere records of receiving phone calls do not disclose the conversation. The entire evidence against the petitioner revolves around these specific phone calls, which are actually between Gurdev Singh, the petitioner, etc. While filing the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC against 10 accused, they did not name the petitioner as an accused, and this is the main categoric submission to this Court in the writ petition that the petitioner filed. He further submits that, thus, practically speaking, except old call details between the petitioner and his PSO, and Secretary, there is no new evidence that the Investigator has collected against the petitioner, and as such, on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 65. The foundational submission made by Ld. Advocate General for the State of Punjab is that the summoning of an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further investigation by the SIT are separate and distinct aspects of the criminal justice system. In the first charge sheet submitted by the police in this case, it was very clearly mentioned that further i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. If either of these conditions is not met, the bar on granting bail operates. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense, the Court still cannot give a finding on the assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts. 67. The record reveals that the petitioner has been arraigned, arrested, and interrogated prima facia on the evidence of calls with the handler from UK, PSO, and PA; unexplained money that points out its source to the drug trade; and confessional statement of co-accused recorded after the decision of the prosecutions' application filed under S. 319 CrPC. 68. Given above, this Court cannot take into consideration the evidence collected and pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Court can and is imposing stringent and restrictive conditions. 71. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 72. In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number 3. Mobile number 4. E-Mail 74. The petitioner shall hand over his passport to the Investigator/ Police Station, within 24 hours of his release from the jail, with liberty to seek permission to travel abroad. Once, and if, the trial Court takes cognizance of the matter, this condition will be subject to the concerned Court's discretion. 75. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., their respective mobile numbers." 78. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill con....