Shiv Shankar Gupta vs Directorate , Of Revenue ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 237 Chatt

                                                                                           Page No.1

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     MCRC No. 3 of 2021

     • Shiv Shankar Gupta, aged about 30 years S/o Ramawtar Gupta C/o
       Purani Tahseel Ke Samne Parbhakar Nagar, Bebru Banda (U.P.)

                                                                                    ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

     • Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Thru; Inteliigence Officer, Nagpur
       Regional Unit, Nagpur (Maharashtra)

                                                                                 ---- Respondent

                                                AND

                                   MCRC No. 1322 of 2021

     • Baldeo Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Kalidin Gupta, aged about 44 years R/o
       Mohalla Kalukuaan Near Bank of Baroda, District Banda (U.P.)

                                                                                    ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

     • Union of India Through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, regional
       Office, Nagpur, Sixth Floor C.G.O Complex Samineri Hills Nagpur
       440006, (Maharashtra)

                                                                                 ---- Respondent

 ____________________________________________________________

For Applicant in MCRC No. 3/2021                      :        Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior
                                                               Advocate with Mr. Anchal
                                                               Kumar Matre. Advocate
For Applicant in MCRC No. 1322/2021 :                          Shri N.K. Shukla, Senior Adv.
                                                               With Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent                                        :        Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

10/06/2021

Heard.

1. Since both the bail applications arise out of same crime number, Page No.2

therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the respective applicants for

grant of regular bail to them, as they are in custody in connection with

Crime No. 148/2018 registered at Police DRI Nagpur (Maharashtra)

for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 28 and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth

'the NDPS Act')

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Shiv Shankar Gupta in

MCRC No. 3/2021 submits that this applicant has been falsely

implicated in the present case. He has no connection with the crime

committed. This applicant was simply hired as a driver to drive the car

on which the other accused persons were traveling. He was not

having any knowledge about the goods in the truck that was following

the car. The real culprits who were transporting the contraband have

absconded from the spot and the innocent applicant is behind the bar.

Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sujit

Tiwari v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2020) Vol. XIII SCC 447, it

is submitted that the Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused

person on stringent conditions although there is allegation, that he has

been part of conspiracy in smuggling a huge quantity of contraband in

India. Reliance has also been placed in the matters of Surinder

Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence, (2018) Vol. VIII SCC 271 and Union of India v. Leen

Martin and Another, (2018) Vol. IV SCC 490. Hence, it is prayed that

the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Page No.3

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Baldeo Prasad Gupta in

MCRC No. 1323/2021 submits that he would like to adopt the

argument advanced by the counsel appeared on behalf of applicant

Shiv Shankar Gupta. It is submitted that the charge-sheet/complaint

has been filed and no seizure has been made from this applicant in the

investigation. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet mentions the

place of incident in District, Kanker, whereas memorandums and

seizures have been recorded in Raipur. The case is pending for trial

for more than 2 years 8 months and not a single witness has been

examined so far, therefore, this applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned ASG appearing for the respondent in both the cases opposes

the bail applications of both the applicants. It is submitted that the

statements of Shiv Shankar Gupta and Baldeo Prasad Gupta that

have been recorded during investigation, clearly show their

involvement in the crime. Further, applicant Baldeo has criminal

antecedent. Hence, both the applicants have been part of conspiracy

in commission of the crime. Reliance has been placed on the

judgments of Supreme Court in the matters of Mohd. Hussain Umar

Kochra etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and another, AIR 1970 SC 45,

State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Shukla and another, AIR 1980

SC 1382 and Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC

1698. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that Section 35 of the

NDPS Act provides for reverse burden of the accused person that he

has to prove his innocence. Similarly, Section 54 of the NDPS Act

provides for presumption regarding commission of offence in respect

of such person who is in possession of contraband. Therefore, the

applicants in both the cases are not entitled to get bail because the Page No.4

contraband seized is in huge quantity. He prays to reject the bail

applications.

6. Counsel for applicant Shiv Shankar Gupta submits that there is no

clear evidence regarding conspiracy. The investigation itself shows

that this applicant was neither searched nor interrogated by the

investigation agency. The applicant is in detention for more than 2 ½

years, therefore, he is entitled to get bail.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Baldeo submits and replies

that the investigation with respect to this applicant is not clear,

therefore he is also entitled to get bail.

8. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident, the officers

of respondent, upon receiving a confidential information, arrived on the

spot and found a truck bearing registration No. CG04 JB 7703 which

was being escorted by a Tata Zest car bearing registration No. UP90 N

5172. Search was made in accordance with the provisions of NDPS

Act and 1880 Kilograms of cannabis was found that was being

transported by the said truck. Arrest of the applicants were made

subsequently.

9. Considered on the submissions. The grounds raised by the applicants

in both the cases are required to be established in trial. The restriction

led down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly applicable in

these cases. The learned ASG has vehemently opposed the bail

applications and this Court also finds no reason to believe that the

applicants are not guilty for the offence which is alleged to have been

committed. After perusal of the statements that has been recorded

during investigation, I am of the view that the applicants in both the Page No.5

cases are not entitled for grant of bail

10. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge rahul