Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar Dangi vs State Of Haryana on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
(202)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51735-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision: 24.10.2024
Ashok Kumar Dangi
.... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Anirudh Singh Shera, Advocate,
for the petitioner (Through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in this fifth petition under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.951 dated 07.11.2022 under
Sections 15, 18 (27, 27-A added later on) of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered
at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty information was received that Harminder Singh and his
cleaner load goods on a truck bearing registration number PB 12 Y 0692 and
go towards UP, Bihar and Jharkhand. On the way back, they hide poppy
husk and Opium in the said truck. On that day too, Harminder Singh (since
granted bail vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-13228-2024)
and his cleaner Kuldeep Singh (since granted bail vide order dated
12.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-37921-2024) had loaded their truck and
would be going to Ambala from Babain, Ladwa Chowk, Shahabad. If a
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::2::
nakabandi was set up the accused could be arrested and Poppy Husk and
Opium could be recovered.
Based on the aforesaid information, the instant FIR came to be
registered. Subsequently, the recovery of 6.5 kgs. of Opium and 15 Kgs. of
poppy straw came to be effected. During the course of investigation, the
disclosure statement of the arrested accused was recorded naming Ashok
Kumar Dangi (petitioner), Vikram alias Gaurav (since granted bail vide
order dated 29.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-26352-2023), Pardeep Kumar
(since granted bail vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-64-2023)
alongwith Sohan Singh (since granted bail vide order dated 25.07.2023
passed in CRM-M-34480-2023).
The petitioner who was named in the disclosure statement was
stated to be the supplier of the contraband and his dhaba was running on the
Badi-Champaran, Jharkhand G.T. Road. It was found during the course of
the investigation that Vikram alias Gaurav, a co-accused had paid a sum of
Rs.75,000/- into the account of the petitioner on 30.09.2022, 22.09.2022,
17.09.2022 and 12.09.2022. Call detail records of mobile numbers
9319761202 and 7988544749 of the accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar
Dangi and Pardeep respectively were also obtained showing that they were
in constant touch with each other. It was established during the course of the
investigation that the petitioner was the main supplier of the contraband.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that
the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his
co-accused, namely, Harminder Singh. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery
whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::3::
cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme
Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR
(Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by
(NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR
(Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India
2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana,
bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on
17.05.2023, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-
2020.", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the
concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence
against the accused. As the petitioner was in custody since 15.06.2023 and
only 03 out of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he
was entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when five other co-accused,
namely, Harminder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Pardeep Kumar,Vikram alias
Gaurav, and Sohan Singh had been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide orders Annexures P-2 to P-6 respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand,
on instructions from SI Rajpal, contends that in view of the serious
allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of
bail. He was an accused in two other cases bearing FIR No.339 dated
27.05.2023 under Sections 18, 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Shahbad,
Kurukshetra and FIR No.352 dated 30.05.2023 under Section 18 of the
NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Thanesar, Kurukshetra. Therefore, his case
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::4::
was different from that of his ------co-accused who had clean antecedents.
He, however, concedes that the petitioner had been named in the disclosure
statement, was in custody since 15.06.2023, only 03 of the 22 prosecution
witnesses have been examined so far as also the fact that five co-accused,
namely, Harminder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Vikram alias
Gaurav and Sohan Singh had been granted the concession of regular bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-
"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.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::5::
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.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the
High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail
to the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the
Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with
law.
[emphasis supplied]
7. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was held
as under:-
"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under
Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His
application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High
Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy
Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The
petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was
named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other
material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges
that another case with allegations of commission of offence
under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is
not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail.
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::6::
Having regard to these circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail,
subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may
impose.
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been
named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the
petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from
two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias
Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on
the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-
accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and
even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in
pursuance of the disclosure statements, no recovery had
been made from the petitioners.
The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020
(Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and
23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present
case has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses,
out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial
is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The
petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect
to the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the
said calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused,
Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the
petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the
affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are
not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::7::
Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's
case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:-
Still further, no conversation detail between accused
Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been
produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not
sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also
involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had
any connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.
In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of
leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep
accused."
In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai
Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as
under:-
"Having heard learned advocates for the appearing
parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not
found in possession of any contraband article. Over
and above that, the call data records may reveal that in
an around the time of incident, he was in contact with
the co-accused who were found in possession of
contraband. Since there is no recording of conversation
in between the accused, mere contacts with the co-
accused who were found in possession cannot be
treated to be a corroborative material in absence of
substantive material found against the accused."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that
without the transcript of the conversations exchanged
between the co-accused, mere call details would not be
considered to be corroborative material in absence of
substantive material found against the accused. In the
present case, there is no other material against the
petitioners.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, as
well as law laid down in the judgments noticed
hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::8::
petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to their
not being required in any other case.
(emphasis supplied)
9. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:-
"8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is
pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in which
the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis
of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the
petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the
NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three other
cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is
highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated
in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating
Agency.
9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a
significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even
though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the
twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to
commit an offence cannot be satisfied.
10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his
criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would
certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to
take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(emphasized supplied)
10. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645-
2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:-
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::9::
"The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
is not named in the FIR nor in the secret information. He
has been named only in the disclosure statement of his co-
accused which is inadmissible in evidence and even
otherwise since the recovery effected from him of 3 Kgs of
Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity, therefore the
rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply to the
petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since
26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in
the near future, he deserved the concession of bail.
The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that
the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co-accused. As
per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was to
be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two
other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the
Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of
bail in view of his antecedents.
I have heard counsel for both the sides at length.
Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in
the disclosure statement of the arrested accused.
Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at
his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be
relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the
grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR
(Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is
involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as
he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of
bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his
antecedents. Even otherwise, assuming that the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner,
that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to
the petitioner.
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::10::
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.
(emphasis supplied)
11. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
clearly held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement of
a co-accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be
granted regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary
view was taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of
anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under the
NDPS Act in which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court held
that where an accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-
accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested
accused and the person named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of
the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said
accused. In Ranjit Singh (supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) it
has been held by this Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an
accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a
disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.
12. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an
accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of his co-accused, the
petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. It is highly
unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the
whims and facies of the investigating agency.
13. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a
significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140083
CRM-M-51735-2024
::11::
not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to
the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even
though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the
said concession.
14. Interestingly, this is the fifth bail application on behalf of the
petitioner. The detail of his earlier bail applications are as under:-
Sr. No. Bail Applications Date of Decision
1. CRM-M-44391-2023 Dismissed as withdrawn on
19.09.2023
2. CRM-M-63429-2023 Dismissed as withdrawn on
08.01.2024
3. CRM-M-29425-2024 Dismissed as withdrawn on
03.07.2024
4. CRM-M-40898-2024 Dismissed as withdrawn on
29.08.2024
No change in circumstances whatsoever have been pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner entitling the petitioner to the grant
of bail after his last bail application came to be argued and withdrawn as
recently as on 29.08.2024.
15. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
October 24, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
