Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri
CWP No.88 of 2014 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh Chahal
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 07/10/2015}
For the Respondent: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. AG Punjab with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, DAG Punjab.
Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.37--Appeal for cancellation of (a) pre-arrest bail, (b) bail, of accused brothers--Commercial quantity of contraband recovered--Brothers accused of manufacturing contraband--One brother arrested--Granted bail other brother secured pre-arrest bail after evading arrest for 6 months bail alleged to be précised under avoidable haste supreme court of singly judge at high court--Held;
(a) This court can decide on bail granted by single judge of high court--Such on excessive neither amount to assuming rule of appellate court nor of reviewing order.
(b) State can fall back and seek "cancellation of bail" only on ground whether court granted the bail taking "irrelevant material" into consideration or by overlooking" relevant material".
(c) There is qualitative difference between "custodial interrogation" vis-a-vis an accused on bail who is constantly guided by legal advice of advocate.
(d) "Rejection of bail and cancellation" of bail are different situations and needs to be considered and dealt with differently.
(e) Parameters for "Grant of Bail" or "cancellation" of bail are different and court would avoid re-appreciation of the evidence while dealing with application of cancellation of bail but if found that "irrelevant material" was taken into consideration or that "relevant material" was omitted, order granting bail would be perverse and cancellation is inevitable--Regular bail granted not cancelled--Pre-arrest bail cancelled on allegation of commercial quantity--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2).
1. Jagmeet Singh Brar v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No.12 of 2014. (Para 19)
2. Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011(5) Law Herald (SC) 3731 : 2012(1) Marriage L.J. (SC) 10. (Para 68)
3. MBP Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No.3496 of 2014 dismissed on 20.08.2014. (Para 121)
4. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengals & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571. (Para 122)
5. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. 2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 481 : 2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 513 (SC). (Para 123)
6. State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011(9) SCC 182. (Para 123)
7. Rashmi Behl v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2015(1) Law Herald (SC) 770 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 689 : 2015(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1214 (SC). (Para 123)
8. RS Sodhi v. State of UP & Ors. (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC 143. (Para 123)
9. Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration & Anr., (1988) Suppl. SCC 482. (Para 123)
10. Sasi Thomas v. State & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 421. (Para 124)
11. Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 441. (Para 125)
12. Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 1999. (Para 126)
13. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158. (Para 128)
14. Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 2961. (Para 128)
15. Suresh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2015(3) Law Herald (SC) 2281 : 2015(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2319 (SC) : 2015 LawHerald.Org 1098. (Para 129)
16. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. 2013(6) Law Herald (SC) 4401 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 137 (SC). (Para 130)
17. Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475. (Para 131)
18. Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, 2006(1) SCC 732. (Para 132)
19. Jude Chidibere & Ors. v. NCB, 2013(7) RCR (Crl.) 2881.(Para 133)
20. Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 3099. (Para 134)
21. Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2014(2) Law Herald (SC) 1582 : 2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2188 (SC). (Para 135)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Surya Kant, J.: - By this common order, we propose to dispose of the captioned cases. Though the allegations and facts averred in each case differ from each other and the stated grounds also vary, there is nevertheless a commonalty of interests as all the petitioners have sought an independent investigation ‘preferably by the Central Bureau of Investigation’ into (i) FIR No.45 dated 03.03.2013, u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, 21/61/85 of NDPS Act and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib; (ii) FIR No.56 dated 15.05.2013 u/s 379/411/473/120-B and 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Banur; (iii) FIR No.50 dated 03.04.2013 u/s 18/21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act, 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Urban Estate Patiala; (iv) FIR No.292 dated 26.10.2013 u/s 307/34 IPC, 25/54/59 of Arms Act and 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala; (v) FIR No.42 dated 22.03.2013 u/s 22/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at PS Sirhind; and (vi) FIR No.69 dated 08.03.2013 u/s 21/22 of NDPS Act and Sec. 13 of FEMA Act, 1999 registered at Police Station Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Since the prosecution has also pleaded that the FIRs are interlinked, we propose to decide these cases by a common order. For convenience, the facts of each case are briefly stated.
(1) CWP No.88 of 2014 (Jagjit Singh Chahal v. State of Punjab)
2. The petitioner seeks entrustment of the investigation in case FIR No.56 dated 15.05.2013 registered u/s 379/411/473/120-B, IPC, and 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Banur, District Patiala to the Central Bureau of Investigation so as to unearth a diabolical nexus involving the crème de la crème officials, ministers, bureaucrats, leaders of political parties, and other persons occupying the upper echelons of power - with the drug racketeers in the State of Punjab.
3. The petitioner has alleged that th
