Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1410 (PNJ)

Ram Gopal v. State Of Haryana

2003-10-14

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment 1. This order shall dispose of Cri. Misc. No. 26923-M of 2003 and Cri. Misc. No, 42464-M of 2003 as both the accused-petitioners have been accused in case PIR No. 240 dated 11-7-1999 registered under Sections 18/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act (for brevity the Act) and Sections 420/ 467/468/471/120-B, I.P.C. atP. S. Ambala City. It is appropriate to mention that Ram Gopal accused-petitioner had earlier filed Cri. Misc. No. 42731-M of 2002, which was dismissed on 8-10-2002 by this Court beside other petition. 2. The allegations in the FIR are that on 11-7-1999, huge stock of opium was being brought in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-19-IC-878(?) and information to this effect was received. The FIR was registered and a raiding party was constituted for proceeding to the houses of Kalu and Vicky. On seeing the raiding party, two accused succeeded in escaping and the jeep was left behind. They also left behind their bags while fleeing. On search of the bags, opium weighing 41 kg. 250 gms. was recovered. The search of the jeep led to the recovery of driving licence of one Gajinder Singh and the registration certificate, which showed the name of Nand Kishore accused-petitioner. Ram Gopal produced Gajinder Singh and Nand Kishore before the police on 22-1-2000 and also brought a medical certificate of Gajinder Singh to prove that on the alleged date of occurrence, Gajinder Singh was hospitalised and a report was lodged complaining that the jeep was stolen. On the basis of the aforementioned two documents, a report was filed as untraced. A cancellation report was also submitted. However, some information was received from Rajasthan, which resulted into further investigation and it was found that the two documents submitted by Ram Gopal accused-petitioner were fake/ bogus and thereafter Sections 420/467/ 468/471/120-B, I.P.C. were added. Further investigation was conducted and the accused-petitioner was arrested on 14-8-2003. 3. The allegations against Baljeet Singh the other accused-petitioner are that he has been involved in the whole conspiracy in commission of offences. It is also alleged that he has been harbouring the accused, who are named in the FIR. It has further been alleged that he has committed offences under Sections 27-A and 29 of the Act beside offences under Section 120-B, I.P.C. 4. Dr. It is also alleged that he has been harbouring the accused, who are named in the FIR. It has further been alleged that he has committed offences under Sections 27-A and 29 of the Act beside offences under Section 120-B, I.P.C. 4. Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel for Ram Gopal accused-petitioner has argued that Ram Gopal has been dragged in the FIR without any rhyme or reason. He has reerred to the report of Additional superintendent of Police, Bara (Rajasthan) dated 27-1-2003 to submit that in fact the jeep was stolen and the case registered against Gajinder Singh and Nand Kishore was false. According to the learned counsel, there are political motives for involving the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to certain parts of the report and pointed out that case FIR No. 71/2002 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B, I.P.C. P. S. Chippabarod, was false. The report also reerred to the FIR registered at Ambala. As the report was not taken into consideration while deciding the application on earlier occasions, the learned counsel has urged that the same would require to be taken into consideration in the instant petition. 5. Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for accused-petitioner Baljeet Singh has submitted that only allegation levelled against Baljeet Singh is that he has been harbouring the accused, who are indulging in opium smuggling. According to the learned counsel, no specific role has been imputed to Baljeet Singh showing that he himself was involved in the smuggling of opium. 6. Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, learned AAG, Haryana has submitted that the allegations in this case disclose a criminal conspiracy to commit offences and commercial quantity of opium has been recovered. He has further pointed out that Gajinder Singh has made a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P. C. spelling out the actual participation of Ram Gopal accusedpetitioner. He has expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the accused are likely to tamper with evidence, which may seriously prejudice the prosecution. With regard to Baljeet Singh, the other accused-petitioner, the learned State counsel has submitted that he is also part of the conspiracy and cannot escape the serious consequences resulting from Sections 18/27-A/29 of the Act. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record and the statement made by Gajinder Singh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala under Section 164, Cr. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record and the statement made by Gajinder Singh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala under Section 164, Cr. P. C., I am of the considered view that no case is made out for granting bail to the accused-petitioners. A perusal of statement made by Gajinder Singh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, would indicate the role of Ram Gopal accused-petitioner in the commission of offences. Gajinder Singh has been working as a driver on the jeep belonging to Ram Gopal and another at a salary of Rs. 1800/ - p.m. In fact the statement is self-explanatory and reads as under: "Stated that I was working as driver on the Jeep No. RJ-11-IC-678 belonging to Deepak and Ram Gopal Mahajan resident of Chhipabarod. I was geting Rs. 1800/- per month as salary. Nand Kishore was working as Munim with them for the last 12 years. In July 1999 Deepak and Ram Gopal sent both of us to the house of Kalu Singh at Arnbala. We had come there 2-4 times earlier also. In July 1999 when we stopped the vehicle in front of his house then police encircled us. Then Nand Kishore told me to run away to save myself as there was opium in it. Deepak used to come with from there in the train and from there he used to come with us. We reached at Chhipabarod after three days of leaving the vehicle there. On reaching there we told Deepak and Ram Gopal regarding vehicle having been impounded. They told me that my medical has been got prepared from Dr. Mittal. They told Naval Kishore that the vehicle was in his name and therefore he should (make) a complaint of theft of the vehicle." They told us both that we should go somewhere else for 2-4 months. They then brought there along with fictitious medical certificate and fictitious complaint. They produced us before the police. They got us bailed out by producing fictitious papers and even got the vehicle released. When I came to know that they are Indulging in this activity then I left the Job about 2 years ago. The same vehicle has been detained by Ghobra Police along with poppy husk. Additional S. P. summoned me and made inquiries from me. I have made statement before them. Now Ambala Police has also reached me. When I came to know that they are Indulging in this activity then I left the Job about 2 years ago. The same vehicle has been detained by Ghobra Police along with poppy husk. Additional S. P. summoned me and made inquiries from me. I have made statement before them. Now Ambala Police has also reached me. I have told them that I have made the statement. I have made the statement of my own. SD/Gajender Singh C.J.M. 7-8-2002 Ambala 8-8-02, 3.50 p.m." 8. The report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bara (Rajasthan) would also not be helpful to the accused-petitioners because the enquiry has been conducted in connection with FIR No. 71/2002 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B, I.P.C. P. S. Chippa Barod (Rajasthan). It may have slight bearing on the crime disclosed in the FIR, in which Ram Gopal and Baljeet Singh accused-petitioners are involved. Needless to say that huge stock of contraband weighing over 41 kg. of opium has been recovered. There is a specific ban imposed by Sectlcan 37 of the Act to grant bail in such like cases. Petitioners have not been able to show that they are not associated with the offences. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for exercising discretion under Section 439, Cr. P. C. because the accused are likely to indulge in tampering of evidence. The accused-petitioner Ram Gopal has already shown inclination towards commission of offences inasmuch as he is alleged to have presented forged documents to plead alibi on behalf of Gajinder Singh. He has also presented fake /bogus report with regard to the theft of jeep. Even Baljeet Singh has not been able to make good his submission to show that he is not connected with the offences. Harbouring a person indulging in offences involving contraband is a serious offence under Section 27-A of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any violation of procedural law or substantive law warranting exercise of discretion under Section 439, Cr. P. C. Both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.