Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....(1) Criminal Misc.
Nos.48951-52 of 2013 and Criminal Misc.
No.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) ....Date of decision:12.2.2014 Jeet Singh and another ...Petitioners v.
Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh ...Respondent ...(2) Criminal Misc.
No.M-4605 of 2014 ....Nanak Ram ...Petitioner v.
Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Jasjit Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent....Inderjit Singh, J.
Cr.
Misc.
Nos.48951-52 of 2013: For the averments made in the criminal miscellaneous applications, the same are allowed and the documents/reply attached with the applications are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Cr.
Misc.
No.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) and Criminal Misc.
No.M-4605 of 2014: This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
Nos.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) etc.[2].miscellaneous petitions i.e.Criminal Misc.
No.M-38940 of 2013 filed by Jeet Singh and Naib Singh and Criminal Misc.
No.M-4605 of 2014 filed by Nanak Ram under Section 438 Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.26 dated 28.5.2013 registered at Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh for the offences under Sections 8, 18, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').As per the brief facts, on the basis of a secret information a `Naka' was laid in the area of Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh and a car bearing registration No.HR-40A-4433 was seen coming, which was stopped and on search, it was found to be carrying opium weighing 15 Kgs.
400 GraMs.Two persons, namely, Pawan Kumar and Room Singh were apprehended.
The statements of both these persons under Section 67 of the Act were recorded, on the basis of which notices were sent to the petitioneRs.As the petitioners apprehend their arrest, they sought the concession of anticipatory bail.
At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the only evidence against the petitioners is confessional statements of the two arrested accused-persons and apart from this, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioners with the arrested accused or with the contraband in question.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act are inadmissible in evidence and the matter has already been referred to a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
Nos.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) etc.[3].and, in no way, these statements can be read against the petitioners in the evidence and there being no evidence against the petitioners they are entitled to anticipatory bail.
On the point of admissibility and the value of statement under Section 67 of the Act, learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.
Barkat Ram; AIR1962SC276 Ramesh Chandra Mehta v.
State of W.B., AIR1970SC940 U.O.I.v.
Bal Mukund and otheRs.2009 (2) R.C.R.(Cr.) 574 and Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 (4) R.C.R.(Cr.) 631; of this Court in Darshan Singh Pandit v.
State of Haryana, 1996 (3) R.C.R.(Cr.) 632 and Naveed Masih v.
State of Punjab, 2014 (1) R.C.R.(Cr.) 56; of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shahid Khan and etc.v.Director of Revenue Intelligence, Govt.
of India, Hyderabad and another, 2001 Cri.L.J.3183 and of the Uttarakhand High Court in Akbar Rana v.
State of Uttarakhand, 2014 (1) R.C.R.(Cr.) 222.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the law regarding the admissibility of the statements under Section 67 of the Act etc.Learned counsel for the respondent also argued that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has already collected evidence regarding the mobile phone calls from the present petitioners to the accused, who were apprehended and even some of the calls were of some time earlier before their apprehension.
Leaned counsel for the respondent also argued that even one of the present petitioners has visited the jail where these persons have been confined to meet them.
Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
Nos.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) etc.[4].Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1.
Naveed Masih v.
State of Punjab, 2014 (1) R.C.R.(Cr.) 56; 2.
Narcotic Control Bureau v.
Balwinder Singh, (Murder Reference No.5 of 2012).decided on 8.7.2013; 3.
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v.
State of West Bengal, AIR1970SC940 4.
Kanhaiya Lal v.
Union of India, (2008) 4 SCC668 5.
Raj Kumar Karwal v.
Union of India; (1990) 2 SCC409 6.
State of Punjab v.
Barkat Ram, AIR1962SC276 7.
Francis Stanly alias Stalin v.
Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control bureau, (2006) 13 SCC210 8.
State of Gujarat v.
Anirudh Singh, (1997) 6 SCC514 9.
U.O.I.v.
Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC305 10.
Ram Singh v.
Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2011) 11 SCC347 11.
Kipavunny v.
Asstt.
Collector (HQ) Central Excise Collectorate, (1997) 3 SCC721and 12.
Bhagwan Singh v.
State of Punjab, AIR1952SC214 I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
These petitions are for anticipatory bail, therefore, this Court need not to go into the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act.
This Court also need not to go whether these statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act bind the co-accused or not.
As per the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the present Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
Nos.M-38940 of 2013 (O&M) etc.[5].petitioners have been named by the co-accused in their statements under Section 67 of the Act.
For the purpose of disposal of the bail petitions, it can be held that the present petitioners have been nominated in the present cases on the basis of statements of the arrested co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act.
As per arguments, as the Investigating Officer has collected the mobile phone calls etc.to connect the present petitioners with the crime to show that one of the petitioners is supplier and the other to whom the incriminating articles were to be supplied etc.As already discussed, for the purpose of deciding anticipatory bail, this Court need not to go into the fact whether the statement under Section 67 of the Act is admissible in evidence or whether this statement amounts to confession before the Police or whether it is binding or not on the co-accused.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation purposes and without going into the minute details of the facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of these cases, I do not find it fit cases where the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, finding no merit in these petitions, the same are dismissed.
February 12, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.11 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh