JUDGMENT 1. - The instant case involves ramifications of drastic nature arising from the circumstances, which have been unfurled during the course of the trial of the Sessions Case No. 8/2011 pending in the Court of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases Merta arising from F.I.R. No. 137/2011 of the P.S. Kuchaman City for the offences under Sections 8/15(C), 8/25 and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The facts which have been revealed throw a cloud of suspicion on the conduct of the local police, which has performed the actions of search, seizure and investigation in this case. The startling facts which have been disclosed subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet by the police and during the course of the cross-examination of two star prosecution witnesses, who were involved in the search and seizure proceedings, lead this Court to the conclusion that the two petitioners have been unjustifiably incarcerated in jail in pursuance to a highly suspicious recovery of narcotics i.e. poppy straw weighing 1981 kgs. and 500 gins. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Constable posted at the Kuchaman City namely Gajendra Singh is said to have received an information on 16.6.2011 from the Reader of the Police Station regarding the SHO Shri Prakash Chandra Meena having called him to join him in a blockade conducted at the Narayanpura Mega Highway. When Cajendra Singh reached the Mega Highway the SHO Shri Prakash Meena was standing there from before and informed him that a truck full of poppy straw was coming from Manglana and going towards Deedwana which had to be stopped. At about 6.45 A.M. it is stated that a Santro Car following by a truck No. RJ06-GA-3857 broke through the blockade formed by the police party and started speeding towards the Deedwana road. The police party allegedly pursued the two vehicles and by the time, they could reach the vehicles, the drivers of both the vehicles managed to make good their escape and were pursued by some members of the police party. It is stated that from the truck, Deshraj and Narendra, the petitioners herein were apprehended. It is stated that after observing the necessary formalities etc. the search proceedings were initiated and from inside the truck 51 bags containing a total of 1981 kgs. and 500 gms. of poppy straw were found. It is stated that from the truck, Deshraj and Narendra, the petitioners herein were apprehended. It is stated that after observing the necessary formalities etc. the search proceedings were initiated and from inside the truck 51 bags containing a total of 1981 kgs. and 500 gms. of poppy straw were found. It is also stated that inside the Santro Car No. HRC-7030, a bag containing poppy straw weighing 650 gms. of poppy straw was found. The seizure proceedings were drawn by the SHO Prakash Chandra assisted by Gajendra Singh Constable and other members of the police party. Thereafter the subsequent investigation was carried out by Navneet Vyas, Circle Officer and a charge-sheet was presented against petitioners and other accused persons in the Court concerned for the aforementioned offences. 3. Right from the initiation of the proceedings, the contention of the petitioners herein was that they had been falsely implicated in this case by fraudulently entangling them in the recovery, whereas they were the informers to the Police about the transit of the poppy straw. It was strenuously contended that for the purpose of informing the Police Officers, the accused had been in contact with Gajendra Singh Constable and Bharat Raj Dy.S.P. so that the actual offenders could be apprehended. During the course of the trial, an application was moved by the accused petitioners for summoning the mobile call details along with the location details of the mobile instruments being held by Gajendra Singh Constable, Prakash Chandra SHO and Bharat Raj, Dy.S.P. so that the true fact could be brought to fore. 4. Accordingly, on the prayer of the accused for summoning the call details of these officers, this Court directed the trial Court to summon the mobile- call details of the three Police Officers namely Bharat Raj, Prakash Chandra Meena, SHO and Gajendra Singh, Constable. The mobile call details were procured and upon cross-examination of the Dy.S.P. Bharat Raj, it has been revealed that he was contacted over mobile by the co-accused Pramod Arya on two occasions on 12.6.2011. Witness Gajendra Singh examined as PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he talked to the accused Pramod Arya on almost 58 occasions and with the accused Deshraj on numerous occasions. Witness Gajendra Singh examined as PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he talked to the accused Pramod Arya on almost 58 occasions and with the accused Deshraj on numerous occasions. The tower details showing the location of the mobiles held by these two officers reveal that the mobile instruments held by them were located at Deedwana around about the time of the seizure, whereas the presence of Gajendra Singh as per the seizure memo has been shown to be at Kuchaman. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners praying for indulgence of bail for the petitioners submits that it is impossible to believe that an accused, who is continuously in contact with Police Officers, will thereafter himself lead the vehicle full of contraband into the hands of the Police Officers, so that a case for the offences involving punishment upto 10 years could be registered against him. Referring to the cross-examination of the witnesses Gajendra Singh and Bharat Raj conducted during the course of the trial, Shri Bora contends that on a plain reading of the cross-examination, it becomes clear that these two witnesses in connivance with the Seizure Officer, Prakash Chandra, have framed a false case showing recovery of poppy straw having been made from the accused petitioners. Learned counsel contends that as a matter of fact, the petitioners were the persons, who were the informers to the Police regarding the poppy straw in question and thereafter, for oblique motives, they have been arrayed as accused in the case. 6. This Court had directed the Public Prosecutor to keep the Investigating Officer present in the Court for clarifying the facts. The Investigating Officer Shri Navneet Vyas submits that as per the explanation given by Gajendra Singh, the accused petitioners had informed him that they would get a huge quantity of poppy straw recovered and, therefore, only, in order to collect the details for recovering the poppy straw, the Police Officer was in contact with the accused persons. The explanation seems far from convincing. It does not stand to reason that the accused knowing very well that the police is lying in wait for recovering the contraband would remain present in the vehicle for being conveniently arrested with the contraband. The explanation seems far from convincing. It does not stand to reason that the accused knowing very well that the police is lying in wait for recovering the contraband would remain present in the vehicle for being conveniently arrested with the contraband. The cross-examination of the witnesses conducted till now and the circumstances, which have been brought on record, are sufficient to convince this Court that the petitioners have prima facie created enough doubts in the prosecution story to entitle them to be released on bail until the facts are investigated independently and the truth is brought out. Thus, on the basis of the observations made and directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Soin Mittel v. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 753 and the fact that now the accused, have already remained incarcerated in custody for the last nearly one year, this Court is of the opinion that interim bail should be granted to the petitioners. 7. At the same time, while granting interim bail to the accused, this Court feels that the circumstances, which have been disclosed upon a consideration of the material available on record, make it necessary that true and correct facts have to be brought out in a case involving offences punishable with minimum imprisonment of 10 years. Only on a proper fair and independent investigation by an independent agency, the true-facts can be brought to light. The facts which are existing on the record at present prima facie disclose that there is something very fishy about the way in which the proceedings have been conducted by the local police. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous cases has held that a right to life and liberty is a sacrosanct right available to every person accused of an offence and without doubt, such a right includes a right to make a prayer to the Court that a fair investigation also be made into the allegations. There are gravely suspicious circumstances available on the record, which convince this Court that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a further investigation of the matter should be conducted by an independent agency i.e. the Central Bureau of Investigation because the conduct of the local police officers appears to be highly suspicious in this case as has already been observed above. There are so many threads of suspicion in the seizure and investigation proceedings which convince this Court that for bringing to light the true story, a further investigation has to be directed to be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 9. The Apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 805 and Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2004 Cr.L.R. (SC) 451 approved the directions issued for further investigation of the matter to be conducted by the CBI where the conduct of the State Police was highly suspicious and the possibility of affected persons in getting a fair justice was remote.The observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the two cases referred to above are quoted hereinbelow : "(a) Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 11. Coming to the question whether a further investigation is warranted, the hands of the investigating agency or the Court should not be tied down on the ground that further investigation may delay the trial, as the ultimate object is to arrive at the truth. 12. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the Court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. 13. In Om Prakash Narang & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. 13. In Om Prakash Narang & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the Courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law if there is necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case." (b) State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. "17. This leads us to the next question whether the High Court in the facts of the present case passed the order for investigation by the CBI to secure the ends of justice. The reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 for directing investigation by the CBI are extracted herein below: "The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in rank, will not be in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully, as senior functionaries of the State in the Police Department and political leaders are being named. By this we are not casting any doubts on the investigating team, but it seems that political and administrative compulsions are making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth. Apart from revolving around a few persons who have been named in the status report, nothing worthwhile is coming out regarding the interrogation of the police officers, political leaders and others. Apart from revolving around a few persons who have been named in the status report, nothing worthwhile is coming out regarding the interrogation of the police officers, political leaders and others. The investigation seems to have slowed down because of political considerations. Not less than eight police officials, political leaders, Advocates, Municipal Councilors and number of persons from the general public have been named in the status report. We feel that justice would not be done to the case, if it stays in the hands of the Punjab Police. Having said this, we want to make one thing very clear that the team comprising of Shri Ishwar Chander, D.I.G, Shri L.K. Yadav, S.S.P. Moga and Shri Bhupinder Singh, D.S.P. have done a commendable job in unearthing the scam. We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the C.B.I." On a reading of the reasons given by the High Court, we find that the High Court was of the view that the Investigating Officer even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully because senior functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to be named and political and administrative compulsions were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth. It further observed that not less than eight police officials, political leaders, advocates, municipal councilors besides a number of persons belonging to general public had been named in the status report of the State local police. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court felt that justice would not be done to the case if the investigation stays in the hands of the local police and for these reasons directed that the investigation of the case be handed over to the CBI. The narration of the facts and circumstances in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgment also support the conclusion of the High Court that investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI was absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. The narration of the facts and circumstances in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgment also support the conclusion of the High Court that investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI was absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. Moreover, even though the High Court in the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 did make a mention that in case challan has been filed, then the petition will stand as having become infructuous in the order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court has stayed further proceedings before the trial Court in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 82 of P.S. City I, Moga, till further, orders. Thus, the High Court was of the view that even though investigation is complete in one case and charge sheet has been filed by the Police, it was necessary in the ends of justice that the CBI should carry out an investigation into the case. 18. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010) 2 SCC 571 a Constitution Bench of this Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has cautioned that the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. This caution equally applies to the cases where the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, the High Court has held that the state local police was unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for securing the ends of justice the investigation has to be handed over to the CBI. In other words, this was one of those extra- ordinary cases where the direction of the High Court for investigation by the CBI was justified." 10. In other words, this was one of those extra- ordinary cases where the direction of the High Court for investigation by the CBI was justified." 10. Thus, while granting interim bail to the petitioners for a period of four months and while keeping the bail application pending, it is hereby directed that the further investigation of the case for a limited purpose shall now be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The investigation shall be made with reference to the mobile call details of the Police Officers concerned as well as the call details of the accused and the reasons for them having been in contact with the each other. The investigation is also directed to be conducted as regards the location of the Police Officers concerned, which is revealed from the call details available on the record and its relevancy in context of the seizure proceedings. 11. The Investigating Officer deputed by the S.P. C.B.I. shall conduct the further investigation as per the prevalent procedure prescribed under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 12. Accordingly, the petitioners namely Deshraj Singh S/o Bajrang Singh and Narender Jaipal S/o Sualal, are directed to be released on interim bail for a period of four months provided they furnish personal bonds of Rs. 30,000/- each and two surety bonds of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 13. The trial Court shall handover the investigation file to the concerned Investigating Officer of the CBI upon a request being made by him and the concerned Officer shall make the investigation within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the file and then submit his report to the Court concerned as well as this Court within the said period of three months.List the bail application for further arguments on 10.9.2012.The copy of this order be supplied to S.P. CBI, Jodhpur and Shri Panney Singh, Spl. Public Prosecutor for compliance and necessary action.The accused shall surrender in the Court below on the expiry of the period of the interim bail from the date of their release unless otherwise ordered by this Court.Order accordingly. *******