Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 143 (RAJ)

Gurnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-19

DINESH MEHTA

body2024
ORDER : 1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 235/2022, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 188, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 8, 21, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'). 2. Mr. Thind, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been arrested on 12.04.2022 for absolutely no reason and rhyme and has been kept incarcerated for more than a year. 3. While asserting that there is no evidence worth the name against the applicant, learned counsel navigated the Court through various relevant documents, viz relevant part of the charge-sheet, the call detail report and interrogatory note and statement of applicant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the applicant is that he had helped the drug dealers/peddlers, namely, Harpal Singh, Muktyar Singh and Gurvinder Singh of Punjab, who had managed a consignment of heroin from Pakistan which was dropped/fell in the field of Bhupendra Singh and Jasvir Singh abutting border of Pakistan. 5. While expressing his concern that applicant's interrogation note and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded in police custody on 13.04.2023, i.e. after his arrest, learned counsel argued that such statement have no legal sanctity. He added that even in such statement, the applicant had clearly stated that his son Ravinder @ Ravi, who resides in a separate house might know the other co-accused, but he has no nexus with the consignment of drugs in question or the persons dealing with the contraband substance. 6. Learned counsel further invited Court's attention towards the call detail report analysis prepared by the Investigating Officer which is part of the charge-sheet and underscored that not even a single exchange of call is between the applicant and other co-accused persons. 7. Having drawn the Court's attention towards the relevant part of the charge-sheet, learned counsel prayed that the applicant is not only entitled to be enlarged on bail, but is also entitled to be awarded a cost/damages for being illegally kept incarcerated for a period of about 2 years. 8. 7. Having drawn the Court's attention towards the relevant part of the charge-sheet, learned counsel prayed that the applicant is not only entitled to be enlarged on bail, but is also entitled to be awarded a cost/damages for being illegally kept incarcerated for a period of about 2 years. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts. Despite his efforts, he could not bring to the notice of the Court any incriminating evidence against the applicant, for which he can be said to be involved in the offence under provisions of NDPS Act. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 10. Admittedly, the applicant was arrested on 12.04.2022 and his interrogatory note and statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded thereafter (13.04.2022). 11. Needless to mention that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of disclosure statement given in the police custody sans any incriminating evidence or corresponding recovery. But, curiously enough, even applicant's interrogatory note and statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act contains hardly anything which points towards applicant's involvement in the offence alleged. 12. Maybe, there are traces of involvement of applicant's son (Ravinder @ Ravi), but he too resides separately. 13. Neither any recovery has been made from the applicant nor has any telephonic conversation taken place between the applicant and the other co-accused. 14. In the opinion of this Court, the present case is a classic case where a person's liberty has been curtailed by inculpating him for an offence under the provisions of NDPS Act. The present applicant has remained incarcerated for a period of 21 long months, without there being any iota of evidence. 15. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not involved in the offence alleged against him. Mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly met with. 16. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh arrested in connection with FIR No. 235/2022, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 17. The applicant - Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh arrested in connection with FIR No. 235/2022, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 17. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 18. The State is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant for retaining him in jail for a period of about 21 months. The State shall be free to recover the said cost from the Investigating Officer, who has arrested the applicant without there being any material or evidence. 19. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.