Dismissed

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2014CRM-M/11816/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed regular bail petitions filed by two accused charged under NDPS and IPC provisions. Despite admission that pseudoephedrine is a controlled substance not covered by Section 37 NDPS Act, bail was denied due to heavy recovery and advanced stage of trial.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail applications by Dev Raj and Rakesh Sadhu were dismissed finding no merit in the petitions.

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(1) CRM No.M-11816 of 2014 (O&M) ...Petitioner Versus

¶3

Dev Raj alias Dev Behl

¶4

State of Punjab

¶5

...Respondent (2) CRM No.M-12189 of 2014 (O&M) Rakesh Sadhu alias Tinku ...Petitioner Versus

¶6

State of Punjab

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Date of Decision: December 17, 2014

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Isha Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Both these petitions are taken up together being arisen from same FIR and based on similar facts.

¶15

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.69 dated 16.04.2013 under Sections 22, 25A, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, VINEET GULATI467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM No.M-11816 of 2014 and connected case

¶17

-2-

¶18

District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions.

¶20

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been apprehended from Delhi and in the remand papers, there is nothing to show that intimation to Delhi Police has been given. He further argued that in remand papers, when police remand was sought, it was stated that 60 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine powder has been concealed and it has to be recovered from Himachal Pradesh whereas as per disclosure statement, 30kgs. from Dev Raj @ Dev Behal and 20 kgs. from Rakesh Sadhu @ Tinku of Pseudoephedrine powder has been shown from near the bushes of the toll bridge, Rajpura. Therefore, he argued that recoveries have been planted upon the petitioners falsely and furthermore, the Pseudoephedrine powder is neither a narcotic drug nor psychotropic substance. It is a controlled substance and Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply in this case.

¶21

It is admitted at the time of arguments by learned State counsel that Pseudoephedrine powder is a controlled substance and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in this case. It is also admitted that Pseudoephedrine powder is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance as per provisions of NDPS Act. However, learned State counsel contested the petition and argued that keeping in view the heavy recovery, bail should not be granted. Learned State counsel further argued that Delhi police has been duly informed as

¶22

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM No.M-11816 of 2014 and connected case

¶24

-3-

¶25

per the police file. It is next argued by learned State counsel that accused may inform the Investigating Officer falsely by stating that 60 kgs. salt/powder has been concealed in Himachal Pradesh and on that information, it may have been written on the remand papers.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶27

As per prosecution version, 30 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine powder has been recovered from petitioner Dev Raj @ Dev Behl and 20 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine powder has been recovered from petitioner Rakesh Sadhu @ Tinku. Though it is a controlled substance and Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not debar the grant of bail or in other words, not applicable in this case, even then, keeping in view the heavy recovery from the petitioners, I do not find any ground to grant the bail to the petitioners. The challan against the petitioners has already been presented on 01.03.2014 and charges have already been framed on 10.04.2014. The petitioners have been nominated in this case on the statement of Jagdish Bholla.

¶28

As regarding the fact of wording written in the remand papers regarding more quantity and the place as Himachal Pradesh etc., it is to be seen by the trial Court on the basis of evidence produced before it as to whether this recovery is to be believed or not. At this stage, for the purpose of bail, without any cogent evidence, it cannot be held that a false recovery has been planted upon the petitioners.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited judgments

¶30

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CRM No.M-11816 of 2014 and connected case

¶32

-4-

¶33

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 380 of 2013 titled as Rasikbhai Jashmatbhai Dalshania vs. Union of India and another and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1360 of 2013 titled as Saiyed Vazeerullah Hajimulla Pasha vs. State of Gujarat and another . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgments of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 1202 of 2013 titled as Niranjan Jayantilal Shah vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence” and Crl. M.C. No. 2110 of 2008 titled as Department of Customs vs. Hemant Kumar .

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in CRM No.M-17180 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab , CRM-M 36492 of 2013 (O&M) titled as Avtar Singh @ Tari vs. State of Punjab and CRMM-37903 of 2013 titled as Rajwinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab .

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited judgments passed by this Court in CRM No.M-27654 of 2008 titled as Rajeev Kumar @ Sukha vs. State of Punjab, CRR No.2099 of 2008 titled as Rajeev Kumar @ Sukha vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M17180 of 2010 titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-1940 of 2009 titled as Rajinder Singh @ Minku vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-5071 of 2011 titled as Narinder Kumar Aggarwal @ Goel vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-36492 of 2013 titled as Avtar Singh @ Tari vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-37140 of 2013 titled as Kirpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M- VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

-5-

¶37

CRM No.M-11816 of 2014 and connected case

¶38

37903 of 2013 titled as Rajwinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-8339 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Singh Chahal vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-43845 of 2013 titled as Harpreet Singh Lamba vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-3531 of 2014 titled as Kulbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-9278 of 2014 titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-11967 of 2014 titled as Sanjay Goel vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-24317 of 2014 titled as Ajay Jain vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-21420 of 2014 titled as Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-28274 of 2014 titled as Varinder Singh @ Raju vs. State of Punjab .

¶39

I have gone through all the above cited judgments. In none of the cited judgments, it has been held that despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should be granted. In none of the above cited judgments, it has been held that bail must be granted to the accused. The Courts have granted the bails to the accused in the above-cited cases keeping in view the facts of each case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any ground to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioners.

¶40

Therefore, finding no merit in both the petitions, the same

¶41

are dismissed.

¶42

December 17, 2014 Vgulati

¶43

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Sharma Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh

Sukhdeep Kumar @ Mahant Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Sngh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

Swaranjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.