Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman vs Union Of India And Another on 15 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 1- 2023:PHHC:145012
102+210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-47497-2023 in/and
CRM-M-46226-2023
Date of Decision: 15.11.2023
Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman ...Petitioner
vs.
Union of India and another ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing counsel with
Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate
Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Monika Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Tej Bahadur, Advocate
Ms. Shivali Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Amish Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
CRM-47497-2023
1. The applicant-petitioner has filed the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on record additional documents as Annexures
P-8 and P-9.
2. Application is allowed. Annexures P-8 and P-9 are taken on
record.
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 2- 2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 438
Cr.P.c. with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in Complaint No.855
titled as "Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Amritsar vs.
Jatinder Singh @ Laddu and another", dated 12.12.2022, under Sections 8,
21(c), 27, 28, 29, 60 and 61 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at DRI Amritsar.
2. As per the complaint, a specific intelligence was received by the
officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'the
DRI') at 7.30 am on 12.12.2022 and the same was immediately reduced into
writing and was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, a team of DRI along
with panchas witnesses kept surveillance near Hotel Four Seasons, East Mohan
Nagar, Amritsar. At about 3.30 p.m. two suspected persons resembling to the
intelligence came near the said Hotel. Both of them were intercepted and they
tried to escape from the spot. However, one of the persons was overpowered by
DRI officials, whereas other person managed to escape from the scene. On in-
quiry, the said person disclosed his identity as Jatinder Singh @ Laddu son of
Sh. Gurmukh Singh, resident of L-3/293, Near Deep Palace, Dasmesh Colony,
Sultanwind Road, Amritsar and told the other person's identity as Pardeep
Kumar @ Prince Bahman. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, the personal search of Jatinder Singh @ Laddu was conducted and in the
presence of independent panchas and a gazetted officer, a black coloured
polythene pouch containing some material was recovered from the right pocket
of the jacket worn by Jatinder Singh @ Laddu, accused. On opening the
polythene pouch, it was found that it contained 264.6 grams of heroin. Later on,
the voluntary confessional statement of Jatinder Singh @ Laddu was recorded
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 3- 2023:PHHC:145012
at 10.00 p.m. on 12.12.2022 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein,
he admitted that for monetary benefits and his personal use, he was doing
business of supply of heroin and opium with Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman,
petitioner since last two years. He also admitted that Pardeep Kumar @ Prince
Bahman is a drug trafficker, who runs the racket of heroin smuggling and also
admitted the mode and factum of recovery of heroin as mentioned in the Panch-
nama dated 12.12.2022. He further admitted that again at 10.00 p.m. on
13.12.2022, voluntary confessional statement of Jatinder Singh @ Laddu was
recorded, wherein, he stated as under:-
"That in the morning of 13.12.2022, he went near Gali Gurud-
wara Toot Sahib with DRI officers to verify and confirm the resi-
dential premises of the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar @ Prince
Bahman.
That he went there with DRI team and remotely confirmed the
house of the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar. He stated that besides
the work of the drug trade, the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar is
working as a Driver somewhere.
That he had been working as a supplier of heroin & opium for fi-
nancial gain and in exchange for heroin for personal use for the
last two years with the accused No.2 'Prince Bahman', whose real
name is Pardeep Kumar.
That accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman gave him
Rs.80,000/- for the operation of his father. That a case of 5 grams
of heroin was registered against the accused No.2 in 2018 in Po-
lice Station, B-Division (Amritsar), that heroin was given to him
by the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar @ 'Prince Bahman'.
That he had been indulged in 04 deals of drugs with the accused
No.2 Pardeep Kumar.
That he do not remember the exact time of the said deals of nar-
cotic substances. But all the said deals were made in the last 1-1
½ years.
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 4- 2023:PHHC:145012
That the complexion of the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar was fair
and he had less hair on his head. He has a fit body and has beard
on his face.
That the accused No.2 Pardeep Kumar has three mobiles numbers
7814825405, 8379000004 & 9915312941.
That he made a blunder by being the part of the deal of 264-6
grams of narcotic substances on 12.12.2022, which were seized
from him by DRI Officers.
That he made this mistake in the greed of money & drugs and he
was very guilty of it."
3. As per the complainant, summons had been issued to Pardeep
Kumar @ Prince Bahman under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to join the
investigation in the present case, but he failed to appear before the DRI.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the
petitioner does not find mention in the secret information and he has been
arrayed as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-
accused Jatinder Singh @ Laddu. Learned counsel further contends that even
after the co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Laddu was arrested, a phone call was
received by the present petitioner at 5.47 p.m. on 12.12.2022 and it was not
possible for the co-accused to call the petitioner, while he was in custody of the
DRI officials. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the
provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 41-B of
Cr.P.C. were not complied with. Apart from that, since there was no recovery
from the present petitioner, so the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
not attracted in the facts of the present case and even no presumption under
Section 54 of the NDPS Act can be drawn against him. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case CRA-152 of 2013 titled as "Tofan Singh vs.
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 5- 2023:PHHC:145012
State of Tamil Nadu". Learned counsel further contended that he has been
falsely involved in the present case by the police with some ulterior motive.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. As per him, co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Laddu in his voluntary
statements dated 12.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act, had admitted the mode and factum of recovery and seizure of 264.6
grams of heroin from him. Jatinder Singh @ Laddu, co-accused also admitted
that he was knowingly indulging into this business of possessing, carrying,
concealing and dealing with of narcotic drugs i.e. the seized heroin at the
instance of Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman. Learned counsel for the
respondent further contends that even summons were issued to the petitioner to
tender his statement and to join the investigation, but the petitioner managed to
flee from his house as he saw the DRI team in his street. Apart from that, the
details of the call exchanges between 9517171792 and 9914037253 (both
mobile numbers pertaining to the co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Laddu) and
837900004 (pertaining to the petitioner-Pardeep Kumar @ Prince Bahman)
clearly establishes that both the petitioners were in constant touch with each
other. Still further, in view of the confessional statement made by co-accused
Jatinder Singh @ Laddu, both the accused were accomplices in the case of
264.6 grams of heroin smuggling. Apart from that, the present petitioner is a
habitual offender and following cases were registered against him:-
(i) FIR No.39, dated 02.05.2016 under Section 18 of NDPS
Act, P.S. Sadar, Rajpura, Patiala.
(ii) FIR No.277 dated 29.08.2016 under Section 52-A
Prison Act, P.S.Tripuri, Patiala.
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 6- 2023:PHHC:145012
(iii) FIR No.138 dated 20.10.2020 under Section 21, 25, 29
of NDPS Act, P.S. STF, Phase - 4, SAS Nagar.
6. Resultantly, it was prayed that the bail petition filed by the present
petitioner deserves dismissal. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied
upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State
of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar", 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was
effected from the respondents and that they had been
implicated only on the basis of the disclosure
statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar.
Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in
the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of
Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail
granted to the respondents, the Special Court was
constrained to grant regular bail even to the main
accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail.
Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has
again been apprehended. According to the learned
Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the
second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that
the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that
the respondent was granted regular bail after the
charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing
survives in the appeal. But, we do not agree.
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 7- 2023:PHHC:145012
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to
the respondents shows that the said order was passed
in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the
High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to
hold that the present appeals have become
infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to
take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of
arguing the regular bail application or at the time of
final hearing after conclusion of the trial."
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present bail petition
deserves dismissal by this Court. It is apparent from the record that the
petitioner alongwith his co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Laddu were carrying
264.6 grams of heroin. On getting an intelligence input, both of them were
intercepted by the team of DRI. However, only Jatinder Singh @ Laddu was
recovered from the spot and the recovery of heroin from the co-accused was
commercial in nature. The petitioner managed to flee from the scene. After the
arrest of Jatinder Singh @ Laddu, he suffered two confessional statements
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he assigned specific role to the
present petitioner. Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been reproduced below for
the ready reference:-
"67. Power to call for information, etc. any officer referred
to in Section 42 who is authorized in this behalf by the Central
Government or a State Government may, during the course of any
enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provisions of
this Act,
(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 8- 2023:PHHC:145012
satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the
provisions of this Act or any rule of order made thereunder;
(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or
thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;
(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case."
8. From a bare perusal of the above referred provision of law, it can
be safely held that the statements recorded under this Section can be used as a
prima facie evidence. Even the authorities of Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence can be equated with a police officers and it can never be held that
the statement of co-accused, recorded by the official of DRI, would be
completely inadmissible in evidence.
9. Even in his voluntary confessional statements dated 12.12.2022
and 13.12.2022, Jatinder Singh @ Laddu has specifically named the present
petitioner as his accomplice and also referred him as a drug trafficker, who runs
the racket of heroin smuggling.
10. Apart from that, this Court also does not find any merit in the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case, while considering the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner. In fact Section 37 of the Act contains a special provision with regard
to grant of bail in respect of the offences enumerated under the said Section and
the offences involving commercial quantity. As per Section 37(I)(b) of the Act,
it is mandatory that the public prosecutor shall be given an opportunity to
oppose the application for bail filed by a person accused of any such offence.
As per Section 37(I)(b)(ii) of the Act, if a public prosecutor opposes the
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 9- 2023:PHHC:145012
application, twin conditions have to be specified, while enlarging the accused
on bail. The first condition is that the Court has to be specified that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence
alleged against him. The second condition is that the Court has to be satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. Only on the satisfaction of these twin
conditions, the court has power to enlarge the accused on bail. These two
conditions are cumulative and not alternative. If either of these two conditions
is not satisfied, bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. Even
various judgments have been passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, as noted
above, is a sine qua non for granting of a bail to a person, who is accused of the
offences satisfied under Section 37(I)(b) of the Act.
11. In the instant case also, there is no dispute raised with regard to the
fact that the quantity of heroin seized from the possession of Jatinder Singh @
Laddu amounts to commercial quantity. The fact that no substance has been
seized from the possession of the present petitioner is immaterial. Once it has
been alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused have committed the offences
under Section 21(c), 27, 28, 29 of NDPS Act and the recovery of heroin from
the co-accused was commercial in nature, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act would operate.
12. Apart from that the record also reveals that various notices have
been issued by the DRI to the present petitioner to join investigation, so that his
statement may be recorded under Section 67 of the Act and he may be
questioned/interrogated to know the mode and manner of commission of crime,
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
CRM-M-46226-2023 - 10- 2023:PHHC:145012
to effect recovery of incriminating evidence, to know the names of other
persons involved in the smuggling, to know the supply of source of heroin and
other related investigation.
13. Apart from that, it is also apparent from the record that the
following three cases were also earlier registered against the present petitioner
and his antecedents are not clean. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondent that the present petitioner is a drug trafficker, who
runs the racket of heroin smuggling. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of the
offence and the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner does not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail and the considered opinion of the Court, his
custodial interrogation will be required to take the investigation to its logical
end.
14. The present petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
15.11.2023 JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145012
10 of 10
