Suraj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No.87/2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) on 31.07.2023. The petitioner was arrested based on suspicion. His name was disclosed by other co-accused. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is ayoung person of 21 years and his family members are dependent upon him. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.09.2023 and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The State filed a status report, which is highly illegible but what can be deciphered from the same is that the police searched a vehicle bearing registration no.HP-63A-5557 in the presence of independent witnesses based on suspicion. The police recovered 16.01 grams of heroin from the vehicle. Vipul, Yashpal, Paramjeet and Anmol were found in the vehicle. The police also arrested them. Paramjeet disclosed on enquiry that he had purchased the heroin from Nabi. He was arrested on 31.08.2023. Nabi alias Navneet Singh disclosed that he had purchased the heroin from Suraj-the present petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner. He disclosed that he had purchased the heroin from Akashdeep. The police also arrested Akashdeep. The offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was duly established against Nabi, Suraj and Akashdeep. The challan was presented before the Court on 26.09.2023. An FIR No.103/2019 has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 392 & 397 of IPC at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State.

Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the statement of the co-accused, which is not a legally admissible piece of evidence. Therefore, she prayed that the bail petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence and an FIR has also been registered against him. He has criminal antecedents and should not be released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the bail petition of the petitioner be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’

The police have relied upon the statement made by Nabi alias Navneet to implicate the petitioner.It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdish Chandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568:- 44. Such a person viz. person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession, which is made to a police officer, would be inadmissible having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act would also be inadmissible. A confession unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.”

Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can be utilized to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to the police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and will not be saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It was laid down in Union of India v. Khalil Uddin, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2109 that the benefit of Tofan Singh (supra) can be taken during the bail proceedings. It was observed:

The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu(2021) 4 SCC 1. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta 2022 (12) SCC 633, the rigour of law laid down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail.

Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioner. This is not a legally admissible piece of evidence and cannot be used against the petitioner.

A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri.L.J.4564 and it was held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufficient to deny bail to a person.

It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2022 LawSuit(HP) 211, that where the police have no material except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed: -

“[16] In the facts of the instant case also the prosecution, for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration, the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of coaccused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the existence of a prime facie case against the petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

[17] Since, the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold a prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his favour.

[18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1. Further, on the basis of aforesaid elucidation,the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail.

A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs. State of H.P., passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P.,passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023,decided on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023,

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused and the call details as these do not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence.

There is no other evidence against the petitioner and it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the present petition is allowed. The bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail the petitioner will abide by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner will attend the trial on each and every date of hearing and if he is unable to do so, he will seek an exemption from the Court by filing an appropriate application,

(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever,

(iii) The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and do any other act to hamper the progress of the trial.

(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court.

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Sub Jail Solan and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.