Gurinder Singh @ Gindi vs State of Punjab

The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest

bail has been filed by the petitioner - Gurinder Singh @ Gindi, an accused

in FIR No.17 dated 27.2.2015 for the offences under Sections 21 and 29

NDPS Act, registered with Police Station Maqboolpura, Amritsar.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution version

are that on 27.2.2015, a police party led by SI Kuldeep Singh was on

patrol and checking duty. During the course of checking of private

vehicles on the basis of secret information that car JK-02-F-1320 BMW

white in colour using fake registration number was coming from the side of flats of Improvement trust towards Telephone Exchange side use for

carriage of contraband, the car was intercepted. It was having four boys

with short hair besides a turbaned person. The driver of the car told his

name as Surinder Kumar alias Titu son of Darshan Singh, Caste Jatt,

resident of City Enclave, Jagraon and the turbaned person sitting on the

front seat told his name as Santokh Singh son of Sampuran Singh, Caste

Jatt, resident of village Durgapur, Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn

Taran. The persons who were sitting on the rear seat disclosed their

identities as Sunny Sharma son of Sarfu Ram, Caste Mehra, resident of

Ward No.2 village Khera, Police Station Tehsil Akhnoor, State District

Jammu, other as Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju son of Sarfoo Ram, Caste

Mehra, resident of Ward No.2, village Khera, Police Station/Tehsil

Akhnoor, State District Jammu, third one as Shahjada Alam son of Meth

Afsaal, Caste Muslim, resident of village Mohmmad Dava Khana, village

Sitta, State Bihar, at that time in Jammu Kashmir. As desired by such

persons on being asked search of the car was conducted in presence of

Sh.Harpreet Singh Dhaliwal, ACP(Crime). A plastic bag was recovered

from the right pocket of jacket of driver Surinder Kumar alias Titu, which

was found to contain heroin. Sample of 10 gms. was taken out of it and

put in a plastic container. It was converted into a parcel. The remaining

contents on being weighed came out to 990 gms., which were put in the

same bag and then put in a plastic container. Parcels of the sample and the

bulk were prepared, which were sealed with the seal of Investigating

Officer having impression ''KS'' and that of ACP(Crime) having inscription

''HS''. On personal search of such accused, Rs.2 lacs of Indian currency

were recovered which were also converted into a sealed parcel, then the

case property was taken into possession. From the personal search of

Santokh Singh, heroin was recovered out of which sample of 10 gms. was

taken and remaining on being weighed came out to 1 kg. Those were

converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession. Currency notes

worth Rs.3 lacs were also recovered from him. From Sunny Kumar 990

gms. of heroin was recovered, out of which sample was taken out and

sample and bulk were converted into sealed parcels. Rs.2 lacs currency

notes were also recovered from him. Nothing was recovered from the

personal search of Shahjada Alam and Sanjay Kumar. Accused were

arrested in this case. Formal FIR was got recorded.

The case was investigated, during the course of which it came

out that such persons were part of international gang, who acquire

contraband from smugglers of Pakistan and then sell it in different cities

of India. Indian currency of Rs.7 lacs recovered from them had been

earned by them by selling the contraband. The car in which such persons

were travelling was found to have fake number plate carrying No. JK-02-

F-1320 whose actual number was PB-46-L-0003. When the case was

investigated and accused were interrogated, names of various persons

including Ashish Kandhari, Ved Parkash and Mandeep Singh @ Netarpal

cropped up being part of drug syndicates. It was further transpired that

currency of Rs.7 lacs so recovered had been paid by Mandeep Singh to

them in lieu of heroin supplied through him and Rs.7 lacs were to be paid

to Ashish Kandhari though on the basis of inquiry by ADCP City-1,

Amritsar, Ashish Kandhari was found to be innocent and he was got

discharged. Mandeep Singh alias Netarpal was arrested in this case on

28.5.2015 and R.C. of car BMW No.PB-46-L-0003 was recovered from

him, in that way, he was owner of the car.

During the course of his interrogation, Mandeep Singh

disclosed that petitioner was indulging in illegal trade of heroin and

currency notes of Rs.7 lacs had been given to him by the petitioner for

further handing over the same to Surinder Singh along with some vehicle

for bringing more heroin, which he had got smuggled from Pakistan from

co-accused Sunny, Sanjay Kumar and Ved Parkash, in that way, petitioner

Gurinder Singh @ Gindi was nominated as accused in the present case.

The investigation revealed that the accused apprehended at

the spot besides petitioner have links with smugglers of Pakistan and they

had got smuggled the recovered heroin from a smuggler namely Malik of

Pakisthan. An amount of Rs.7 lacs recovered from them was paid by

Gurinder Singh @ Gindi to accused Surinder Singh in lieu of the heroin

purchased through him. Petitioner Gurinder Singh @ Gindi is stated to be

king pin of the gang.

The petitioner was on run and could not be arrested. When

proceedings for declaring him proclaimed offender were going on, then he

approached the Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. His such request was

declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated

19.9.2015. Later on, he approached this Court for grant of that very

concession.

Notice of the petition was given to respondent - State, which

has appeared through State counsel. The petitioner was granted interim

bail, during the course of which he had joined the investigation but as

stated by the Investigating Officer, he has not rendered co-operation and

disclosed the facts within his knowledge.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor was arrested from the spot; that

he has been nominated on the basis of interrogation of co-accused and

statement of co-accused is not legally admissible evidence to prove the

offence; that the petitioner does not have any past criminal record; that he

has joined the investigation in terms of the order passed by this Court,

therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required, as such he be granted

pre-arrest bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the

petitioner is king pin of a big gang of smugglers having contacts in

foreign countries and has been engaged in nefarious activities of bringing

drugs and narcotic substance from across the border and then supplying it

in various cities of India, therefore, he is not entitled to get concession of

pre-arrest bail. She has further argued that though in terms of the order

passed by this Court, the petitioner had joined the investigation but since

he was couched in comparative safety of the interim bail, he did not come

forward to disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In that way, his

custodial interrogation is a must for complete and effective investigation.

In support of her contentions, she has referred to authority State of

Punjab Versus Paramjit Singh Chahal, 2015(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 724

by a Division Bench of this Court. In that very authority, in light of the

law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court, it was observed that there is a

qualitative difference between ''custodial interrogation'' vis-a-vis an

accused on bail who is constantly guided by the legal advice of his

advocate. In paras 30 and 34, it has been observed as follows:

(30) Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act has no other meaning except

that in addition to the offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A, the

special conditions mentioned in its sub-clause (ii) are applicable in

all those cases also where a person is accused of the offences

''involving commercial quantity''. Now when there is material on

record to make out a prima facie case under Sections

9A, 21(c) read with Section 27-A and the offences are alleged to

have been committed through an organized networking by the drug

mafia, rich and affluent persons who are identified as the principal

offenders, this Court could not have declared its satisfaction or

belief that Chahals were not guilty of committing any offence or

that they are not likely to commit the offence while on bail.

(34)The parameters for the grant of regular bail are surely

different than those for granting the pre-arrest bail. This Court

could not draw that distinction while treating Paramjit Singh

Chahal at par with his brother Jagjit Singh Chahal. Mere

submission of charge- sheet in deference to the statutory time limit

does not mean that the doors under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. were/are closed for the prosecution. If the prosecution can elicit

more information or vital clues to find out the deep-rooted nexus of

drug traffickeers or any other new material having bearing on the

merits of the case through the custodial interrogation of Paramjit

Singh Chahal, such information or material will definitely assist the

Special Court to arrive at a just conclusion. The doors for such an

eventuality however, were closed, little realizing that the Apex

Court''s observations that the persons dealing in narcotic drugs are

more dangerous than a murderer as they are instruments in

causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent

young victims who are vulnerable and that the sale and supply of

narcotic drugs causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the

society. Those who are dealing in this illicit trade are "a hazard to

the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability,

they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or

dealing in intoxicants clandestinely". [Ref. Union of India vs. Ram

Samujh and Anr . (1999) 9 SCC 429 ]

The mere fact that petitioner - accused is not named in the

FIR and was not arrested from the spot cannot be taken any advantage of

by him since the purpose of recording FIR is to set the criminal machinery

in motion and it is not substantive piece of evidence. The investigation

gets started after registration of the FIR. The manner of committing the

offence, the identity of the culprits, the role played by them in the crime

can be found out only during investigation. True, statement of a co-

accused may not be taken as legally admissible evidence against the other

accused during the trial, but for the purpose of investigation, it can

certainly be considered as providing a lead in the investigation. Though

there is nothing on record to show the previous antecedents of the

petitioner but even if it is taken that he had been lucky enough not being

named in any FIR so far is no guarantee that he is innocent and is not

involved in the drug trafficking regarding which the present FIR has been

registered.

In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil

Sharma, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon''ble Apex Court had

observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation

orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case

like this interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in

getting useful informations.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is definitely required

for complete and effective investigation. In case custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many

loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being

carried out adversely which is not called for.

Thus finding no merit in the petition, the same stands

dismissed.