Niranjan Kumar Singh vs Government Of India

Both the bail applications are heard and decided together by this common order as they are arising out of the same crime number and incident.

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who

have been arrested in connection with Crime No.33/2020, registered at Police Station - DRI, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

Section 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (c), 27-A and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (in M.Cr.C. No. 836 of 2021) that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in this case. This applicant is resident of Raigarh, who is Dhaba owner and also has a garage for repair and body building of the trucks. It is

not denied that this applicant had prepared secret chambers in the truck of the co-accused persons on their request, regarding which, he had doubts

and on his asking it was replied that these chambers are being prepared to carry food articles as the vehicles have to go on long run. The statement of

the applicant- Niranjan Kumar Singh recorded by the investigation officer is not admissible in evidence in trial. Reliance has been placed on the

judgment of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31. The applicant was not present on the spot, when the truck of the co-

accused persons were seized and the contraband was recovered. Therefore, he has no connection with the case concerned and he has neither abetted

nor conspired for such commission of offences. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (in M.Cr.C. No. 2800 of 2021), that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in this case. This applicant has no connection with the crime committed. This applicant has operated the customer service point under the

license of State Bank of India. Various persons come and go to avail the services provided by the center of this applicant. Only statement present,

which has been made a ground to array this applicant is that he had made some money transfer on the instruction of one Sanjay Singh. This applicant

had no knowledge about the source of the money and the entitlement of recipient. Hence, he has no connection with the offence committed. He is in

jail since 22.12.2020. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes both the bail applications and the submissions made in this

respect. It is submitted that as regards the applicant Niranjan Kumar, there is evidence present about direct assistance given by him in preparation of

secret chambers in the truck, which were specifically used for transportation of contraband. His statement recorded in the investigation reveals that

the applicant was aware that the secret chambers may be used for some illegal activities. This is the act of conspiracy and it is clearly covered by the

ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1382. Further this applicant has criminal

antecedents as he was earlier prosecuted for a case under C.G. Excise Act, which shows his criminal background. Therefore, he is not entitled for

grant of bail.

He would further submit that the applicant - Amit Kumar Tiwari has clear involvement in this case. He has transferred money into various accounts

on the instruction of one person and the same money was used for transportation of contraband and this act was clearly covered under Section 27-A

of N.D.P.S. Act. Further Section 35 of N.D.P.S. Act provides that there is reverse burden upon the accused persons to prove that they have not

committed the offence. Hence, this applicant is also not entitled for grant of bail.

In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant (in M.Cr.C. No.836 of 2021) that there is nothing to show the mens

rea on the part of the applicant, therefore, he has no complicity in the commission of offence registered against him. Hence, he is entitled for grant of

bail.

In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (in M.Cr.C. No.2800 of 2021) also submits that there is no statement given by any

witnesses against this applicant regarding his involvement. Therefore, the application should be allowed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

According to the prosecution case, on 01.10.2020, D.R.I, Raipur received secret information regarding transportation of contraband on the basis of

which, Truck bearing registration No.P.B.-06/G-5533 was stopped and searched. 450 Kg. and 432 gm Ganja was found stored in the seceret

chambers of the truck. Seizure of the same was made from Vikramjeet Singh, Charanjeet Singh and Surendra Singh.

Considered on the submissions. Investigation shows that only evidence is the statement of the applicant Niranjan Kumar Singh himself that he has

constructed secret chambers in the truck. The investigation is required to be made further for collecting evidence on the point of conspiracy of the

applicant - Niranjan Kumar Singh. Similarly the applicant - Amit Kumar Tiwari has made some money transfer on the instruction of one Sanjay Singh.

It appears that there is no evidence that he was the person, who has financed for all the activity that are alleged. Hence, under these circumstances,

this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the both the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

Accordingly, both the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like

sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance as and when directed.

Certified copy as per rules.