Irfan Khan v. State of Haryana

JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0388 dated

18.12.2020 under Sections 15(c)/18/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act No.61 of 1985 and Section 201 IPC registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind.

2.  The brief facts of the case are that secret information was received that Jagrup @ Jagroop son of Amar Singh had taken delivery of a huge quantity of doda post from a truck driver and had got loaded the same in the TATA Magic (Chhota Hathi) bearing No.PB-08-DG-6706.  He would be taking the same to the area of Narwana and if a nakabandi was set-up, he could be arrested. Based   on   the   aforementioned   information,   one   Jagrup   @ Jagroop Singh (since granted bail vide order dated 25.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-53752-2023) came to be apprehended with 414 kgs. of poppy husk.

3.  During the course of investigation on 19.12.2020, Rakesh son of Arjun was arrested with truck bearing No.HR-45C-9998.   The said CRM-M-55416-2023 ::2:: Rakesh suffered a disclosure statement confessing his guilt and the truck was taken into police possession.  On 24.12.2020, Amandeep son of Gurvinder Singh was arrested.  He disclosed about the involvement of police officials investigating this case initially in entering into a deal with them (accused) to release him (Amandeep) and Abhishek.  He also disclosed that there were call details between the petitioner and Amandeep and stated that he had got loaded the contraband from the petitioner on 17.12.2020.  Based on the said statement   and   the   investigation,   FIR   No.392   dated   24.12.2020   under Sections 15(c), 15(3)/18/25, 27-A/29, 59(2) NDPS Act No.61 of 1985, Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 192, 196, 201, 202, 203, 217, 409 and 166-A IPC, Police Station Uchana, District Jind was registered. It transpired that the contraband got loaded on a TATA Magic vehicle recovered in the instant FIR had been part of a consignment being carried in a Truck, the recovery from which lead to FIR No.392 dated

24.12.2020. On 22.02.2021, Subhash @ Golu was apprehended and joined in investigation.   He disclosed about the involvement of Mubarik Khan (since granted bail vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in CRM-M-19850-2022), Jagrup @ Jagroop and Irfan Khan (petitioner).  There was evidence of telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the other co-accused. On 26.02.2021, Mubarik Khan who had been arrested in Fir No.392/2020, Police Station Uchana, was arrested in the present case as well.  He admitted his guilt and disclosed that the amount for the purchase of contraband was deposited in his bank account. CRM-M-55416-2023 ::3:: The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented against Jagrup @ Jagroop, Rakesh, Amandeep, Mubarik Khan and Subhash @ Golu on 08.06.2021. A supplementary challan was submitted against Abhishek on

31.08.2021. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on the basis of production warrants when he was in custody in FIR No.392/2020 on

22.01.2023.  He disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from Shakir @ Chhotte Khan, resident of Madhya Pradesh. The report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was prepared against the petitioner and was presented on 21.03.2023.

4.  The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   contends   that   the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which has little evidentiary value. 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, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the CRM-M-55416-2023 ::4:: concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused.  He contends that the instant FIR i.e. FIR No.0388 dated

18.12.2020 and FIR No.392  dated 24.12.2020 arise out  of the same transaction and therefore, cannot be treated as separate cases.  In FIR No.392 dated 24.12.2020, the petitioner had been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-32815-2023 (Annexure P-3).  Effectively, there was only one other case bearing FIR No.355/2015 under Sections 8, 15 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam, wherein the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced vide a judgment dated 22.06.2022.   As the petitioner was in custody since

22.01.2023 but only 09 out of the 40   prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

¶5 The learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply dated   10.01.2024   which   is   already   on   record,  contends   that   serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner.  He was an accused in the present FIR as well as in FIR No.392 dated 24.12.2020.  Further, he was a convict in one case arising out of an FIR No. 355/2015.  Therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.   He, however, concedes that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of his  co-accused, was in custody since 22.01.2023, only 09 of the 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and that in one of the other two cases registered against him, he had been granted the concession of bail.

¶6I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. CRM-M-55416-2023 ::5:: ;. $he Hon<&%e Supre!e 2ourt in the case of State of 6ar.ana Versus Samarth "umar 5supra7, he%d 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.

¶5But, 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.

¶6Learned 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.

¶7The 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.

¶8In 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 CRM-M-55416-2023 ::6::

¶9To 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.

¶10In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law. =e!phasis supp%ied> In Vi4a. Singh Versus The State of 6ar.ana, -earing Spe'ial 7ea*e to Appeal (Crl2) No2(s)2$2338202, de'ided on $%2052202,, it was he%d 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." 5e!phasis supp%ied7 $he Hon<&%e Supre!e 2ourt in the case of  State -. (NC/) /engaluru Vs2 0allula-id Ahmad Arimutta 1 Anr2 (supra), he%d as under:( ? 9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulatedSUKHPREET KAUR CRM-M-55416-2023 ::,:: statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

¶10It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs2 State of Tamil Nadu, (202$) & SCC $, 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 (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless. $his 2ourt in the case of Vi!rant Singh Versus State of 0un4a-, CR9:9:, 35%:2020, he%d as under:( ? It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named I attest to the accuracy and in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and CRM-M-55416-2023 ::*:: the alleged recovery has been effected from two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The 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 co-accused, 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 appea% a'ainst the ac@uitta% of Sandeep accused.A 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 I attest to the accuracy and incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who were CRM-M-55416-2023 ::9:: 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)

¶8A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that bail can be granted to an accused where he has been named in a disclosure statement of his co-accused but there is no recovery from him on his arrest and the CDRs do not disclose the actual conversation that transpired between the accused from whom the recovery was effected and the one named in the disclosure statement .

¶9In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused.  It would a matter of adjudication during Trial as to whether the instant FIR No.0388 dated 18.12.2020 and FIR No.392 dated 24.12.2020 could be treated as one case arising out of the same transaction.  Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 22.01.2023 and only 09 of the 40 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. SUKHPREET KAUR Therefore, the Trial of the present case is  not likely to be concluded anytime CRM-M-55416-2023 ::10:: soon.  Hence, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required as a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 NDPS Act can be recorded in the aforementioned factual scenario.

¶10Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Irfan Khan is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶11The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the cases mentioned in this order.

¶12In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

¶13The petition stands disposed of. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE February 21, 2024

CRM-M-55416-2023 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55416-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.02.2024 Irfan Khan .... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana. *****