Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 61 (MAN)

Md. Masle v. State of Manipur

2019-09-18

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.V. Muralidaran, J. Brief Case of the Petitioner: 1. The petitioner is a retired government employee, drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 6665/- and also working as an Executive Member of Orphan home and president of Haji Halimmuhalla committee. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 30.05.2018 at about 12.05 PM by police personnel of NAB lead by the Dy. S.P. Th. Brinda. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to NAB Police Station located at Imphal and put him in a Police Lockup for alleging the involvement of trafficking drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in connection with a FIR case No. 37(5) 2018 NAB PS under section 21 (c)/25/27A/29 r/w 68 Y NDPS. 3. That, on the next day i.e. 31.5.2018 the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, ND & PS Manipur and remanded the custody till 11.6.2018 and on the same day the Special Judge (ND & PS) remanded him in the judicial custody till 25.6.2018 and since then the Petitioner is in judicial custody till today at Central Jail, Sajiwa, Imphal. 4. That the charge sheet in connection with the said FIR Case No. 37 (5) 2018-NAB-PS under section 21(c)/22(c)/25/27A/29 r/w 68 Y NDPS has been filed by the concerned authority and Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS) registered a Special Trial Case No. 14 of 2019 and the present stage of the case is for charge hearing and the petitioner is the accused No. 4 in the said Special Trial Case No. 14 of 2019. 5. That, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Learned Special Judge (ND & PS) praying for releasing him on bail in various grounds. However, the Ld. Special Judge rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 20th April 2019. 6. As such, being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this present bail application before this Court for releasing the petitioner on bail in connection with the Special Trial Case No. 14 of 2019 pending on the file of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS. OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT: 7. On 10.05.2018 at about 09.10 am the complainant of the present case namely Shri M. Suraj Singh, S.I of NAB Police Station lodged a report to the O.C. concerned stating inter alia that on 04.05.2018, the three accused persons namely (i). Mrs. OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT: 7. On 10.05.2018 at about 09.10 am the complainant of the present case namely Shri M. Suraj Singh, S.I of NAB Police Station lodged a report to the O.C. concerned stating inter alia that on 04.05.2018, the three accused persons namely (i). Mrs. Chalmawii Duhlian (53) W/o Hashim of Dalpati Road near Madras Mandir, Moreh Ward No. 2 (ii) Mrs. Lalrozami Duhlian (27), W/o Sougaijam Robindro of Moreh Super Market Ward No. 2 and (iii) Mr. Sougaijam Robindro Singh (28) S/o. S. Ibitombi Singh of Kakching Wairi Thongam Leikai, Kakching District but residing with his wife Mrs. Lalrozami at Moreh were arrested in connection with FIR No. 30(04)2018 NAB P.S. u/s. 22(c)/62/60(3)/29/25/21(B) ND & PS Act. 8. The accused person disclosed and revealed that they are doing illicit cross border drugs trafficking business from Myanmar to India. It is also disclosed that the said Mrs. Chalmawii Duhlian used to supply drugs to the customers through her daughter and son-in-law i.e. Lalrozami and S. Robindro Singh respectively. 9. Their drugs trafficking business is operating by means of depositing the required amounts to bank accounts being UBI A/c No. 0791010161817 Moreh Branch opened in the name of Mrs. Chalmawii Duhlian, UBI A/c No. 0791010164351 and UBI A/c No. 0791050013891 both Moreh Branch opened in the name of Mrs. Lalrozami Duhlian. 10. The statements of the said three bank accounts were seized from the UBI, Moreh Branch. As per these statements A/c No. 0791010161817 is found to have been deposited a sum of Rs. 85,22,412.75/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs twenty two thousand four hundred twelve and seventy five paise) on different date and from different sources and a total of Rs. 81,85,755.12/- (Rupees eighty one Lakhs eighty five thousand seven hundred fifty five and twenty five paise) is found to have been withdrawn within a period from 29.03.2012 to 04.05.2018. Now Rs. 3,36,657.50/- (three lakhs thirty six thousand six hundred fifty seven and fifty) only is remained as balance amount. 11. As per the statement of A/c No. 0791010164351 a total sum of Rs. 4,10,79,6791/- (Rupees four crores ten lakhs seventy nine thousand and six hundred seventy nine) is found to have been deposited from different sources during the period from 25.08.2012 to 04.05.2018 and out of this total amount of Rs. 4,10,56,460.25/- only was withdrawn. Now, the remaining balance is only Rs. 23,218.75/- only. 12. 4,10,79,6791/- (Rupees four crores ten lakhs seventy nine thousand and six hundred seventy nine) is found to have been deposited from different sources during the period from 25.08.2012 to 04.05.2018 and out of this total amount of Rs. 4,10,56,460.25/- only was withdrawn. Now, the remaining balance is only Rs. 23,218.75/- only. 12. It is further case is that as per statement of A/c No. 0791050013891 a total sum of Rs. 13,13,39,700/- only is found to have been deposited from different sources during the period from 16.5.2015 to 4.5.2018 and out of this Rs. 12,97,42,933.50/- is found to have withdrawn. Now, Rs. 15,96,766.50/- remains as balance. 13. Therefore all together a sum of Rs. 18,09,39,791.75/- is found to have been deposited to the said three bank accounts from different sources during the aforesaid period. Out of this Rs. 17,89,85,149/- is found to have withdrawn. 14. The Investigating agency could trace out some of the sources from where the aforesaid amount were deposited. One of the source unearthed by the investigating agency which is relevant in the present case is that huge amount of money is found to have been deposited through Bank A/c No. 803-001-101-011353 of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank opened in the name of one Shri Moirangthem Jiban Singh @ Jeevan S/o. (L) M. Sanajaoba Singh of Kakching Turel Wangma. Accordingly, he was interrogated. He disclosed that he opened the said current bank account for the purpose of availing loan as advised by the Manager of the aid Bank who is his relative. The said Bank Manager instructed him to consult with one Farooque of Lilong, an employee of the bank for detail transaction information. Accordingly, the said Farooque was consulted and he advised him to maintain good amount of money transaction from his Bank account. Thereafter, one day the said Farooque requested him to allow to his Bank Account for transacting some money by the uncle of the said Farooque namely Md. Masleuddin @ Basleuddin (present petitioner) for the business of his (petitioner) son namely, Md. Sirin (absconder) He accepted the proposal thinking that it will help to maintain good record of money transaction in his Bank Account and gave 9 signed blank cheque leaves to the said Md. Farooque in good faith. Investigation revealed that a sum of Rs. Masleuddin @ Basleuddin (present petitioner) for the business of his (petitioner) son namely, Md. Sirin (absconder) He accepted the proposal thinking that it will help to maintain good record of money transaction in his Bank Account and gave 9 signed blank cheque leaves to the said Md. Farooque in good faith. Investigation revealed that a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- only is found to have been deposited from the Bank A/c of the said M. Jeean Singh to the bank A/c No. 0791050013891 opened in the name of Accused No. 2. Thereafter the Investigating Agency had interrogated the said Md. Farooque and he admitted that the bank Account of Moirangthem Jeevan Singh and the signed blank cheque leaves were used for transacting huge amount of money to Moreh by his uncle for his son's business. Hence, the case against the present petitioner. 15. The present petitioner was arrested on 30.5.2018 from Thoubal and seized two mobile handsets along with Rs. 70,500/- cash from his possession by observing all the formalities prescribed by law. During his remand in police custody he admitted to have committed the alleged offences in collusion with his son namely, Sayheed Ahmad @ Sirin @ Awangba who is still absconding. Thereafter, on 11.6.2018 he was remanded to judicial custody. Again, he was formally arrested by Lilong Police Station in connection with the FIR No. 60(5)2018 LIL P.S. u/s. 148/149/353/359/34 IPC Hence, having made out prima facie case against the accused persons including the present petitioner, the case has been charge sheeted with a specific prayer to the Special Judge (ND & PS) to take up necessary legal proceedings against the two absconding accused persons. 16. There is nothing bar in law to submit charge sheet beyond 6 months. If at all the petitioner felt aggrieved, he should have questioned at the appropriate time. 17. The name of the present petitioner is not mentioned as accused person in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, his role in committing the alleged offences came to light from the statements given by witnesses No. 9 & 10 of the charge sheet which was admitted by the petitioner during his police remand. 17. The name of the present petitioner is not mentioned as accused person in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, his role in committing the alleged offences came to light from the statements given by witnesses No. 9 & 10 of the charge sheet which was admitted by the petitioner during his police remand. In other words, as per the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the present petitioner who is the uncle of the said witness No. 1-requested him to help his son for sending huge amount of money to Moreh for his business through somebody account of the Imphal Co operative bank while the said witness is working. Accordingly, the said witness convinced the witness No. 9 to use his bank account for the said transaction and procured 9 signed blank cheque leaves and the statement is corporate with the statements of witness No. 9. On examination of the bank account statement, it is unearthed that Rs. 13,00,000/- only is found to have been transferred from the bank account of the witness No. 9 to the Bank A/c of accused No. 2. Therefore, there is cogent materials to make out prima facie case against the present petitioner. 18. The petitioner is not entitled to release on bail in view of the restriction imposed by Section 37 ND & PS Act in as much as there are materials which indicates his active role in the activities of illicit cross border drugs smuggling in collusion with other co-accused including his own son who is still absconding. It is further submitted that in the present case i.e. the case of the petitioner, question of compliance of the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the ND & PS Act does not arise. 19. It is further submitted that in the present case i.e. the case of the petitioner, question of compliance of the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the ND & PS Act does not arise. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions in support of their contentions: (1) AIR 1978 SC 429 : (1978) CriLJ 502 : ( 1978 1 SCC 240 : (1978) SCC (Cri) 115 : (1978) 2 SCR 371 : (1078) Shim LC 220- Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2) AIR 2012 SC 830 : (2012) Cri LJ 702 : (2012) 1 GLH 93 : (2012) 1 LW (Cri) 46: (2012) 1 PLJR 264 : (2011) 4 RCR (Criminal) 898 : (2011) 13 SCALE 107 : (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 UC 151 : (2011) 6 UJ 4077 - Sanjay Chanda Vs CBI (3) Criminal Appeal Nos. 571 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2564 of 2018) Ram Gopal Goyal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 20. I have given my careful consideration to the respective submission made by the learned counsel for both parties. 21. In connection with the criminal case, on appreciating the materials indicated, the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner/accused cannot be negative since there is no prima facie material or any reliable evidence available as alleged by the respondent. 22. The medical records and the health status report of the petitioner/accused reveals that he is a type-2 diabetes and having treatment for various ailments. Further in this case the accused No. 1 to 3 were already released on bail. 23. Since the trial is on progress there is no question of hamper or tamper with any prosecution evidence and the respondent never objected regarding this. No contraband articles or any materials were seized from the petitioner/accused. Further no incriminating materials were recovered from the house search of the petitioner/accused. 24. Apart from this, the petitioner is in Judicial custody from 30.05.2018 i.e. for more than 16 months. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail considering the theory of parity and on medical grounds. 25. No contraband articles or any materials were seized from the petitioner/accused. Further no incriminating materials were recovered from the house search of the petitioner/accused. 24. Apart from this, the petitioner is in Judicial custody from 30.05.2018 i.e. for more than 16 months. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail considering the theory of parity and on medical grounds. 25. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the fact that the petitioner/accused is about 64 years old person and is suffering from various ailments and also the fact that trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to release the petitioner/accused on bail. 26. In the result, (a) this petition is allowed. (b) the petitioner is granted bail on condition that the petitioner is directed to execute two sureties like sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, N.D. & P.S., Manipur. (c) the petitioner is directed to report before the Learned Special Judge, N.D. & P.S., Manipur daily at 10 A.M. until further orders. (d) the petitioner is directed not to tamper or hamper the witnesses.