DHARMAAN RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, aged about 55 years, seeks to be enlarged on bail having been arrested in connection with Melli P.S. Case No.9/2020, dated 12-04-2020, under Section 7/9/14 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (for short, "SADA, 2006") read with Section 7(1)(c)/7(4) [sic] of the Sikkim Anti Drugs (Amendment) Act, 2017.

(2.) During the course of hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed the contention that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant matter with no proof whatsoever of his complicity in the offence, save the statement of the truck driver, who is also arrayed as an accused, stating that a total of 598 bottles of Cough Syrup of various brands, recovered and seized from the truck driven by him, belonged to the Petitioner and had been transported in his truck on the Petitioner's request. That, neither the controlled substances were seized from the possession of the Petitioner nor is there any other evidence to establish that the Petitioner had requested the truck driver to transport the controlled substances for him, besides which no proof emanates as to the use or sale of the controlled substances by the Petitioner. That, the Petitioner was arrested from "Melli" although the driver had allegedly informed the Police that the Petitioner would be waiting for the alleged consignment of controlled substances near "Rolu" temple, which is however situated between Melli and Jorethang, South Sikkim, thereby revealing the falsity of the driver's statement and the Prosecution case, while the Petitioner is completely innocent. The Petitioner is infact a well known and respected permanent resident of Daragaon, Jorethang, South Sikkim and has been falsely implicated sans grounds by the Prosecution. Owing to his permanent residence in Sikkim the question of him absconding does not arise neither does he intend to tamper with the Prosecution evidence or the witnesses. He undertakes to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and in Court at the time of trial. That, this Court may take into consideration that the Petitioner is depressive and a patient of vertigo as fortified by the Medical Certificate, Annexure 7, issued by Dr. Subhash Tamang, ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, District Hospital, Namchi, South Sikkim. That, the owner of the truck was never arrested to examine his involvement, while the Petitioner has been wrongly arrested. That, in view of the grounds put forth the Petitioner be enlarged on furnishing bail, on any condition as deemed appropriate by this Court. In support of his submissions, Learned Counsel relied on the ratio of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat (2007) 4 SCC 266, Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2018) 3 SCC 22, Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk. and Another (2018) 13 SCC 738, State of Kerala etc. v. Rajesh etc. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81, Rupa Gurung v. State of Sikkim 2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 20 (Bail Appln. No.02 of 2020).

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while repudiating the contentions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the accused was indeed arrested on the basis of the statement of the driver of the truck, the accused No.1 in the instant matter, who divulged that the Petitioner had requested him to bring the bottles of Cough Syrup, which are controlled substances in terms of the SADA, 2006. That, the First Information Report also reveals that on recovery of the controlled substances valid bills could not be furnished by the driver, who then made the aforestated revelation adding that the Petitioner would be waiting for him near Rolu Temple, in his vehicle, to receive the consignment of controlled substances. That, on the basis of such revelation the Police team went towards Rolu Temple and intercepted the Petitioner with his vehicle at a bridge before the said Temple. The question of arresting the owner is ruled out as he is not involved in the offence. As the controlled substances are large in number, should the accused be enlarged on bail there is every likelihood that he will tamper with the evidence as admittedly he is an influential person in the locality. That, the Petitioner has criminal antecedents having in the past been involved in a rioting case under the jurisdiction of the Jorethang Police Station and later in Hingdam Police Station case also for a similar offence. Hence, considering his antecedents his involvement in the offence is a foregone conclusion. That, the investigation is still underway and enlarging the Petitioner on bail at this stage would prejudice the Prosecution case. Besides, the menace of drug peddling has to be curbed in the State and on these grounds, the Petition for bail deserves a dismissal. To augment his submissions, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on Nabin Manger v. State of Sikkim SLR (2018) Sikkim 1454 : (Bail Appln. No.03 of 2018).