Bikram Singh Majithia vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Bikram Singh Majithia - Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 54698 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 24-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.S.Sobti, Advocate Mr. Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate Ms. Misha Rohtatgi Mohta, Advocate Mr. Mohit Rai, Advocate Mr. Ishan Khetarpal, Advocate and Mr. Somnath Tayal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, Mr. Deepinder Singh Patwalia, Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy A.G., Punjab.

Headnote:
The court denied anticipatory bail to a politician accused of facilitating, abetting, and conspiring to assist drug trafficking and other related illegal activities. The court found that the allegations against the politician were serious and grave, and that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him. The court also found that the politician was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation. The court held that custodial interrogation of the politician was necessary to unearth the deep, pervasive, and intertwined web of drug trafficking in the state.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a politician, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 25, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The allegations against the petitioner included facilitating, abetting, and conspiring to assist drug trafficking and other related illegal activities. The petitioner argued that the FIR was politically motivated and that there was no evidence to support the allegations against him. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and grave, and that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him. The State also argued that the petitioner was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the politician were serious and grave, and that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him. The court also found that the politician was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation. The court held that custodial interrogation of the politician was necessary to unearth the deep, pervasive, and intertwined web of drug trafficking in the state.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the politician were serious and grave, and whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him? 2. Whether the politician was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation? 3. Whether custodial interrogation of the politician was necessary to unearth the deep, pervasive, and intertwined web of drug trafficking in the state?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations against the politician were serious and grave, and that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him. The court also found that the politician was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation. The court held that custodial interrogation of the politician was necessary to unearth the deep, pervasive, and intertwined web of drug trafficking in the state. The court relied on the following legal principles: 1. The NDPS Act is a special law that provides for stringent measures to combat drug trafficking. 2. The allegations against the politician were serious and grave, and there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him. 3. The politician was a high-profile individual who was in a position to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation. 4. Custodial interrogation of the politician was necessary to unearth the deep, pervasive, and intertwined web of drug trafficking in the state.
Final Decision: The court denied anticipatory bail to the politician.

JUDGMENT :

Lisa Gill, J.

1. This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

2. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0002 dated 20.12.2021 registered under Sections 25, 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, Police Station SAS Nagar. It is submitted that the petitioner is a mainstream politician and a senior member of the Akali Dal party. The present FIR, it is contended, has been registered for extraneous considerations in a mala-fide manner. It is submitted that there is inexplicable delay in registration of the FIR and a fresh FIR in any case could not have been registered in the given circumstances and as it was incumbent upon the authority to have first sought permission of the competent court before proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State continued changing officials at the helm of affairs till the officer/officers in question toed the line and ultimately registered the FIR.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that, the abovesaid FIR has been registered on the basis of communication dated 20th of December 2021 by the Director General of Police, Punjab to the Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Chandigarh, opinion dated 01.12.2021 of the learned Advocate General, Punjab and status report of Mr. Harpreet Singh Sidhu, IPS, ADGP, Special Task Force and Border, Punjab. Said FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 27(a) 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. It is stated in communication dated 20.12.2021 that a case be registered on the basis of the status report submitted by the STF in CWP No.20359 of 2013 and CWP No.15916 of 2017 and further investigate the same.

5. Said status report by the head of the STF had been filed pursuant to orders of the Division Bench in CWP No.20359 of 2013 of this High Court. It is stated in this communication dated 20th of December 2021 that many of the persons prosecuted in the cases had been convicted for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act by the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore their involvement in drug trafficking and distribution of narcotics is an offence. Facilitating, abetting, conspiring, assisting and gaining financial benefit from such offences and profiting from and using such illegal proceeds and money received from such activities of drug trafficking is also stated to be an offence. It is further stated that intentional use of government machinery including vehicles and security personnel, other government facilities for assisting, facilitating and abetting drug trafficking and other related illegal activities is an offence. It is stated that since a number of cases have been registered in various districts in the matter, it would be appropriate to get the present case registered at Police Station State Crime (Bureau of Investigation) SAS Nagar, to be investigated by a special investigation team for which orders were issued separately. Thereafter opinion dated 01.12.2021 of the learned Advocate General, Punjab is reproduced in the said FIR.

6. It is mentioned by the learned Advocate General, Punjab that past laxity in dealing with the issue has accentuated the problem. While observing that the enormity of the problem of drug menace was pointed out in a letter by a retired IPS officer, namely, Mr. Shashikant which resulted in the High Court taking suo moto cognizance of the matter on 16th of September 2019 (CWP No.20359 of 2013), reference was made to order dated 28th of November 2017 passed in the said writ petition, the relevant extract of which is reproduced in the FIR itself, wherein Mr. Harpreet Sigh Sidhu, head of the STF, was directed to look into the allegations against the petitioner, his complicity in the matter as contained in CM No.15916-CWP of 2017 in the above sa