Dinesh Dhar Dube vs The State
1994 Latest Caselaw 473 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) The petitioner has moved the present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The. petitioner is charged with offences under Sections 20/61/85 of the Ndps Act. According to the prosecution on search of the petitioner 3 Kg. 100 gms. of Charas and 15 Kg. of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.12.1993. The petitioner was arrested on the said date and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi on 23rd December 1993. Since then he is in custody.

(2) The petitioner has sought bail mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The necessary facts relied upon by the petitioner in this behalf are that on 16th December 1993, one Govind Kumar @ Govinda: notorious auto thief, who belongs to Distt. Allahabad, the place to which the petitioner belongs, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 25/54/59. of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Govinda is said to have made a confessional statement that he had stolen about 20/21 scooters and motorcycles from various parts of South District, New Delhi which he had disposed of in Allahabad and that he could get all those vehicles recovered from Allahabad. Govinda was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for judicial remand on 17th December 1993. The Police Officer who produced Govinda before the Metropolitan Magistrate is Si Udaibir Singh in the anti-unit theft squad and he sought police remand on the ground that Govinda had to be taken to Allahabad with a view to recover 20/21 scooters from there at his instance. Accordingly, remand in police custody was granted for Govinda till 24.12.1993. Si Udaibir Singh reached Allahabad along with Govinda on 21.12.1993. This fact is stated to be entered in the daily diary of Police Station George town, Allahabad.

(3) On 21.12.1993 the house of the petitioner which is stated to be within the jurisdiction of George Town, was raided with a view to recover the scooter at the instance of govinda, which the petitioner had purchased from him. The petitioner as well as the scooter was to taken to the George Town Police Station. The father of the petitioner grew anxious about his son when he did not return up to 3.00 P.M. and he accordingly sent a telegram to the District Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad. Father of the petitioner was not allowed to meet him in the Police Station, George town, Allahabad and he was told that the petitioner will be produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate next day for involvement under Section 411, Indian Penal Code . and for permission to take him to Delhi in connection with the auto theft case. On the next date, i.e., 22.12.93, the father of the petitioner was unable to see the petitioner and was also unable to find out whether the petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate. He made a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad about this. Copies of all these documents have been placed on record by the petitioner. On 23.12.93, in spite of various enquiries the family members of the petitioner were not told anything by the police authorities at Police Station George Town about the whereabouts of the petitioner. However, they were able to get a hint that the petitioner along with the scooter had been taken to Delhi. Recovery on one scooter at Allahabad is established from the application for judicial custody and remand of the petitioner moved before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 24.12.93. Thereafter, some of the family mi.'aibvrs of the petitioner came to Delhi and tried to locate the petitioner in Delhi. In Delhi, also on 24.12.93 a complaint was made to Commissioner of Police, Delhi through a telegram. Ultimately from the anti auto theft squad (South District), Delhi, in connection with the search of the petitioner, came to know that somebody from Allahabad was kept confined at Jangpura Police Station by members of the anti auto theft squad. The brother of the petitioner went to the said place and was able to see his brother standing against a window in a helpless condition. He was not allowed to meet his brother. Ultimately he made a complaint through a telegram to Dcp (Vigilence) on 27.12.93 stating this fact of having seen his brother in Jangpura Police Post and seeking his help. On 27.12.93 itself recovery of Charas and Ganja from the petitioner has been shown and the petitioner was arrested and challaned for the said offence.

(4) Thus the case of the petitioner is that various documents produced on record show that the petitioner was held in custody all along from recovery of the offending material from the petitioner is by way of false implication of the petitioner. If it is a case of false implication and planting of the offending material no case will be made out against the petitioner under the provisions of the Ndps Act and he should be granted bail, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(5) In reply the learned counsel for the State had only this to submit that the documents relied upon by the petitioner to make out a case of false implication are yet to be proved. It is only at the stage of trial of the case that the veracity of the documents relied on by the petitioner can be established. The court should not prejudge the matter. At this stage, the court has to see that a large quantity of narcotics has been recovered and in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Ndps Act, the petitioner should not be admitted to bail.

(6) I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The question is of liberty of a person. The copy of the application dated 24.12.93 for extension of judicial remand of Govinda clearly shows that one scooter had been recovered at Allahabad. The scooter has been recovered from the petitioner at the instance of Govinda. The learned counsel cor the respondent has not been able to deny the fact that Si Udaibir Singh had reached Allahabad along with Govinda on 21.12.93 and had made the recovery of one scooter from the petitioner at the instance of Govinda. Simply saying that the documents have yet to be proved is not enough. The respondents know whether the petitioner was in custody from 21.12.93 onwards or not and if he was in custody, they would have to explain the same. That the documents relied upon by the petitioner are yet to be established and proved at trial means continued detention of the petitioner till the trial is over. If the petitioner is ultimately found to be falsely implicated in this case, it will follow that no case is made out under the provisions of the Ndps Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

(7) The petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petition is disposed of.