VISHNU BHADRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. F.No.DRI/MZU/NRU/INT 87/2018, registered at Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Nagpur (Maharashtra) (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c), 20, 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. The first bail application M.Cr.C. No.1407/2019 of the applicant was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 12.07.2019 and the second bail application M.Cr.C. No.5473/2019 was dismissed at motion state on 20.08.2019. However, the liberty was granted to the applicant to file repeat application after examination of the material witnesses.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 06.07.2018. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused persons. The applicant is aged about 58 years and he is suffering from diabetes and hypertension. The statement of the applicant that was recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act was a statement given under compulsion after he was arrested by the Police Officer and placed in confinement. Further the formalities as required under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act were also not completed. The prosecution against him is of malicious nature. It is submitted that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 2018 17 SCC 627is clearly applicable in this case because the complainant and the investigation officer is the same person. It is also submitted that the trial before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Raipur is not making any progress under the pandemic situation and it is almost withheld, because of which, so far only three witnesses have been examined in this case. It is submitted that according to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2012 1 SCC 40, the applicant has become entitled for grant of bail after filing of the charge-sheet. The evidence collected in the investigation regarding naxal connections of the applicant is totally false. It is further submitted that independent witnesses in this case have been examined before the Court, who have not made any statement against this applicant and also against the other accused persons. Therefore, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Mohan Lal Vs. Sate of Punjab (supra), Sujit Tiwari Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors,2020 SCC OnLine SC 84, order of this Court dated 03.10.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.6299 of 2018 (Ravi Nadar Vs. State of C.G.), order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No.296/2014 dated 04.09.2019 (Mohammed Fasrin Vs. State Rep. By the Intelligence Officer). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Harpreet Singh Bahad Vs. D.R.I.,2009 SCC OnLine Del 3013, judgment of Orissa High Court in Abhaya Paricha Vs. State of Orissa,2015 SCC ONLine Ori 412, judgment of Supreme Court in Cr.A. No.949 of 2018 decided on 31.07.2018 (Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence), order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr.M.M. No.20838/2018 dated 10.01.2019 (Yogesh Rai Vs. State of Punjab), judgment of Supreme Court in State By Inspector of Police Vs. Rajangam, 2010 15 SCC 369, judgment of Delhi High Court in Leysilener Zandile Luthuli Vs. Directorate of DRI,2018 SCC OnLine Del 12561, judgment of Bombay High Court in Yusuji Hinagata Vs. State and Anr.,2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2474, judgment of Delhi High Court in Annabelle Analista Malibago Vs. DRI,2018 SCC OnLine Del 12114 and in case of Harish Joshi Vs. DRI,2009 ILR(Del) 58. It is submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in citation mentioned herein above, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.