Kamal Singh @ Kamaal Singh vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh

Suvir Sehgal, J

The hearing of this petition has been taken up through video conferencing on account of outbreak of coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

CRM No.30235 of 2020

For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed and order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the trial Court is permitted to be placed on record as

Annexure P-9.

CRM-M-25750 of 2020

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in complaint case

NCB Crime No.31 dated 22.05.2017 registered under Sections 18(b)/27-B/27-A/29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for

brevity hereinafter called “the NDPS Actâ€​) by Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Sector-25, Chandigarh.

Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information to the effect that two persons, namely, Ram Kumar and Krishan

Murari, who are involved in trafficking of opium, are bringing huge quantity of opium and are reaching Ellenabad at around 5:15 a.m on 22.05.2017 to

deliver the contraband to Kamal Singh (present petitioner). On receiving this information, raiding party reached the Bus Stand, Ellenabad. Krishan

Murari and Ram Kumar were apprehended while handing over a bag to Kamal Singh, petitioner, who was already waiting for them on his motorcycle.

A search of the bag was conducted and 4.540 kg opium was recovered. The petitioner was arrested on 23.05.2017.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, who is 71 years old, has been falsely framed. According to the counsel, the petitioner has a

clean past and the alleged recovery was not effected from the petitioner. His contention is that keeping in view his period of custody and the fact that

trial is not progressing because of the pandemic, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 25.07.2019

(Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CRM-M-35079 of 2018 titled as 'Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another' to submit that the case of

the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, who has been granted the concession of regular bail.

Opposing the petition, State counsel upon instructions from Investigating Officer Avdesh Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner was caught by the

raiding team at the spot and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him. She has made a reference to the affidavit of Intelligence

Officer, NCB, Chandigarh filed in reply to the petition to contend that the petitioner has a criminal past, which he has not disclosed. Still further, it is

her submission that the trial is at an advanced stage and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

The petitioner has allegedly been caught red handed alongwith co-accused by a team of NCB officials and huge contraband has been recovered from

him, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity as per the schedule appended with the NDPS Act. The rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the

NDPS Act is attracted and the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.

From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in four cases including the present one. The

details thereof are as under:-

i) FIR No.46 dated 22.02.2003 registered under Section 18 and 61 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at P.S.Ellenabad, District Sirsa in which the petitioner has

been convicted, vide judgment dated 26.07.2004;

ii) Crime No.31/2007 dated 22.05.2017 registered at NCB Chandigarh under Section 8, 18, 29, 60 and 62 of the NDPS Act (the present FIR);

iii) FIR No.55 dated 13.03.2016 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at P.S.Ellenabad, District Sirsa in which the petitioner has been

acquitted, vide judgment dated 14.02.2019; and

iv) FIR No.111 dated 22.05.2017 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at P.S.Ellenabad, District Sirsa in which the petitioner has been

acquitted, vide judgment dated 04.04.2019.

It is clear that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He stands convicted in an FIR registered against him under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner has failed to disclose this crucial fact in the petition, rather a categoric assertion has been made by the petitioner in para 13 of the

petition, which is reproduced as under:-

“13. That the petitioner is not involved in any case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner has neither been convicted in a case under NDPS Act nor

is any case against the petitioner pending anywhere.â€​

The relief of bail is not meant for a person who has a criminal past and has approached the Court with tainted hands.

Co-accused, Ram Kumar has been ordered to be released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.07.2019 as he is suffering from spine cancer. The

petitioner cannot claim parity with him. Still further, the trial is at an advanced stage which is apparent from the affidavit filed by the respondent. Out

of 10 prosecution witnesses, evidence of 08 witnesses has been recorded and two witnesses remain. Both the witnesses are independent witnesses

and their statements are very material but the same could not be recorded due to the situation arising due to the spread of the contagion. An

apprehension has been expressed that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may try to influence the two independent witnesses and tamper with

the evidence.

Keeping in view the above circumstances, the gravity of the offence, the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has tried to

hoodwink the Court, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of regular bail. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.