Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Gagandeep Singh Alias Gaggu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-2266 of 2022(O&M), CRM-M-9687 of 2022(O&M) and CRM-M-38127 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 30-05-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate, Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Neeru Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, AAG, Punjab., for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of debatable issues regarding compliance with the NDPS Act, the preparation of documents, and the integrity of the prosecution's version, as well as the application of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Sections 21, 22, 25, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the violation of mandatory provisions of law under the NDPS Act, including Sections 42 and 50. It also referenced the judgment of the Division Bench in Didar Singh's case, highlighting the manipulation of documents and the integrity of the prosecution's version. The court also considered the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and cited several judgments where bail was granted in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 21, 22, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners argued that there was a violation of mandatory provisions of law, manipulation of documents, and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The state counsel opposed the bail petitions, citing the recovery of contraband and implication of the petitioners based on disclosure statements.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act was a matter of debate to be adjudicated during the trial. It also noted the debatable issue regarding the preparation of documents and the integrity of the prosecution's version. The court considered the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and cited several judgments where bail was granted in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband.
Issues: The issues included the violation of mandatory provisions of law, manipulation of documents, non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the integrity of the prosecution's version.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the debatable issues regarding compliance with the NDPS Act, the preparation of documents, and the integrity of the prosecution's version. It also considered the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and cited relevant judgments where bail was granted in similar cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed all three bail petitions and directed the petitioners to be released on regular bail, imposing specific conditions to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This order will dispose of three petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR no.47 dated 11.07.2021 registered under Sections 21, 22, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala.

2. The first petition, i.e. CRM-M-2266-2022 has been filed by Gagandeep Singh alias Gaggu. The second petition, i.e. CRM-M-9687- 2022 has been filed by Gurpreet Singh. The third petition, i.e. CRM-M- 38127-2021 has been filed by Rajveer Singh @ Deol @ Ravivinder Singh @ Rajdeep Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have jointly submitted that in the present case, there is a violation of mandatory provisions of law. It has been submitted that the FIR in the present case has been registered on 11.07.2021 and perusal of the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act (Annexure P-6) would show that the report was prepared on 15.07.2021 but the same is stated to have been signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.D. Tapa on 10.07.2021. For the said purpose, reference has been made to the vernacular wherein, the said date has also been mentioned as 10.07.2021. It has been submitted that said fact shows that the documents have been manipulated. It has also been argued that as per the report dated 11.07.2021 under Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act (Annexure P-4), it has been stated that the report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is being presented for information and is signed by SI Kuldeep Singh, CIA Barnala, dated 11.07.2021 and the same is being sent to SI Paramjit Singh and not to any senior officer as is required under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. It has been submitted that the same has been sent from one Sub Inspector to another Sub Inspector and that too, belonging to two different police stations, whereas the provision of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act specifically requires that after noting down the information in writing, the officer concerned shall, within 72 hours, send its copy to the immediate superior officer. It has also been submitted that the immediate superior officer would be either the Officer Incharge of CIA staff or the DSP Tapa or the SSP, since the report has been prepared by Sub Inspector Kuldeep Singh, CIA, Barnala. It has further been submitted that in the report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, although in the end it is mentioned that case be registered and the concerned Investigating Officer be informed but the FIR number has been mentioned along with date and sections and it has been submitted that the same also shows that the documents have been prepared subsequent to the registration of the FIR. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Didar Singh @ Dara vs. The State of Punjab, reported as 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337. It has been stated that in the present case, there is a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to memo of personal search (Annexure P-5) which has been carried out by ASI Satwinderpal Singh without giving any option as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It has also been stated that the petitioner Gagandeep Singh @ Gaggu has been in custody since 12.07.2021 and is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. It has further been stated that as far as Gurpreet Singh and Rajveer Singh @ Deol @ Ravivinder Singh @ Rajdeep Singh are concerned, they have been in custody since 17.07.2021 and they are also not involved in any other case and they have been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused. It has been submitted that co-accused of the petitioners namely Sarban Singh @ Lakhi @ Sarwan Kumar has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 passed in CRM-M-49251- 2021. It has been stated that there are 16 prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined,