Patna High Court – Orders
Karan Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Intelligence … on 20 December, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86148 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Karan Kumar S/o Baban Singh @ Baban Rai R/o Village- J.P. Dera Chakki,
PO- Chakki, PS- Brahmpur, District- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,
Patna Bihar
2. The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra
Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Awadhesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-12-2024
Heard Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Central
Government Counsel for the Union of India.
2. This is an application for grant of bail to the
petitioner, who is in custody in connection with NCB Case No.
10 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Spl. Case No. 11 of 2021,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/ 20(b)(ii)
(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioner as earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was turned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
2/7
down by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 52857 of 2021 vide order
dated 30.08.2022 after taking into consideration that the huge
quantity of ganja, commercial in nature has been recovered from
the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons.
While rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner, this Court
had observed that the learned trial court will take all necessary
measures to expedite and conclude the trial as early as possible.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
despite the fact that the prayer for bail was rejected way back on
30.08.2022, till date out of six charge sheet witnesses, only four
witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of
conclusion of the trial in near future. Drawing the attention of
this Court to Annexure-P/3 series, it is further contended that
other co-accused persons, who were also apprehended along
with the petitioner and from their possession 112.20 kgs. ganja
was recovered, they have been allowed bail. It is lastly
contended that be that as it may the petitioner has been
incarcerated since 04.04.2021 and he undertakes before this
Court that he will fully cooperate in the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Union
of India vehemently opposes the bail application and submits
that the trial is at the fag end and his release from custody would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
3/7
certainly delay the trial. It is further contended that the
petitioner bears 3 criminal antecedents. Beside the present one,
it also suggests the involvement of the petitioner in such kind of
crime.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties
and after going through the materials available on record as well
as the earlier orders of this Court, whereby other co-accused
persons have been granted bail, this Court finds that the case of
the petitioner is based on parity. It would be suffice to quote the
relevant paragraphs of the bail order dated 11.01.2024 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 35866 of 2024, whereby other co-accused person
namely, Ravi Ranjan, having similar allegation has been granted
bail.
“6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner
further submitted that from the materials available
on record, the entire allegation against the
petitioner is based upon his voluntary statement
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which
is not admissible in the eyes of law in view of the
mandate of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State
of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1]. In course of
arguments, he drew the attention of this Court on a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court in its paragraphs no. 22 and 23 has
held as follows:
“22. Before parting, it would
be important to reflect that laws
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
4/7which impose stringent conditions
for grant of bail, may be necessary
in public interest; yet, if trials are
not concluded in time, the injustice
wrecked on the individual is
immeasurable. Jails are
overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not,
appalling….
23. The danger of unjust
imprisonment, is that inmates are at
risk of “prisonisation” a term
described by the Kerala High Court
in A Convict Prisoner v. State, 1993
SCC OnLine Ker 127 “a radical
transformation” whereby the
prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is
known by a number. He loses
personal possessions. He has
no personal relationships.
Psychological problems result
from loss of freedom, status,
possessions, dignity any
autonomy of personal life. The
inmate culture of prison turn
out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by
ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
7. He next submitted that even in the
case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State
of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that Article 21 included within its ambit
the right to speedy trial and the procedure under
which a person is deprived of personal liberty
should be “reasonable, fair and just”.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
5/7
further submitted that recently the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau
of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51] has observed
as follows:
“64. Now we shall come to category (C).
We do not wish to deal with individual
enactments as each special Act has got an
objective behind it, followed by the rigor
imposed. The general principle governing
delay would apply to these categories also.
To make it clear, the provision contained in
Section 436-A of the Code would apply to
the Special Acts also in the absence of any
specific provision. For example, the rigour
as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act would not come in the way in such a
case as we are dealing with the liberty of a
person. We do feel that more the rigour, the
quicker the adjudication ought to be. After
all, in these types of cases number of
witnesses would be very less and there may
not be any justification for prolonging the
trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply
with the directions of this Court to expedite
the process and also a stricter compliance
of Section 309 of the Code.”
9. He further placed reliance upon the
order of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Raj Kumar Thakur @ Raj Kumar v. The
State of Bihar [Cr. Misc. No. 9036 of 2023] and
submitted that while granting bail, the learned
single Judge has taken note of the observation
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right
of speedy trial of an accused is his fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Although Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates
certain conditions regarding grant of bail in case
of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
6/7
but the said condition in itself get diluted, when the
fundamental right of the accused of speedy trial is
per se violated. Certain instances have also been
shown where the accused persons have been
allowed bail after completion of custody of more
than 2-3 years.”
7. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and considering the fact that there is no
likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future and till
date out of six charge sheet witnesses, only four witnesses have
been examined, besides the period of incarceration since
04.04.2021 as also the case of the petitioner is exactly identical
to other co-accused persons, Sunny Yadav and Ravi Ranjan,
who have been granted bail vide order as contained in Annexure
P/3 series, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge (NDPS), Aurangabad in connection with NCB Case No.
10 of 2021 corresponding to NDPS Spl. Case No. 11 of 2021,
subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be the
own/close family members of the petitioner with further
conditions which are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86148 of 2024(2) dt.20-12-2024
7/7trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of
trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates
without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be
cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in
terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this
purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T