Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Nitin Kumar on 28 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
I. CRM-M-55801-2024
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . .PETITIONER
Vs.
NITIN KUMAR
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
II. CRM-M-55802-2024
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . .PETITIONER
Vs.
SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
III. CRR-2447-2024
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . .PETITIONER
Vs.
NITIN KUMAR
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
IV. CRM-M-26362-2023
RISHI KUMAR
. . . .PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Punjab
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
V. CRM-M-25524-2024
RAJIV KUMAR @ GAURAV @ MANNU
. . . .PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . . RESPONDENT
****
Reserved on: 21.01.2025
Pronounced on: 28.01.2025
1 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate,
for the respondent (in CRM-M-55801-2024 and CRR-2447-2024)
Mr. Tushar Khairnar, Advocate,
for the respondent (in CRM-M-55801-2024)
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-26362-2023)
Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-25524-2024)
(through video recording)
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of five petitions titled above, as all of them
have arisen out of same FIR No.305 dated 21.12.2022 under Sections 22(c), 27A
and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Act N: 61 of
1985)[for short ‘the NDPS Act‘] read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station A Division, Amritsar
City.
2.1 In CRM-M-26362-2023, petitioner-Rishi Kumar seeks regular bail
under Section 439 Cr.P.C and it is his first petition.
2.2 In CRM-M-25524-2024, petitioner-Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu
seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C and this is his third petition. His
(Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu’s) first petition bearing CRM-M-12639-2023
was dismissed by this Court on 23.08.2023 (Annexure P8) along with four other
petitions. Second petition bearing CRM-M-6934-2024 was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P9).
2.3 Petition bearing CRM-M-55802-2024 under Section 483 (3) BNSS,
2023 [old Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C] has been filed by State of Punjab seeking
Page 2 of 31
2 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
cancellation of the bail granted to respondent-Sanjeev Kumar Arora by ld.
Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated
15.03.2024.
2.4 Similarly, in CRM-M-55801-2024 filed under Section 483 (3) BNSS,
2023 [old Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C] , State of Punjab seeks cancellation of bail
granted to respondent/co-accused-Nitin Kumar by the ld. Judge, Special
Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 23.04.2024.
2.5 In CRR-2447-2024 filed by State of Punjab, prayer is made for
setting aside the order dated 05.04.2024 of the trial Court, whereby the
respondent/co-accused-Nitin Kumar has been discharged for the offences
under NDPS Act.
Background of the case / Prosecution case
3.1 Before considering the contentions raised in all the petitions, it will
be apt to mention in brief the facts of the case, which were noticed by this
court in its order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-8 in CRM-M-25524-2024),
whereby bail petitions of five accused were dismissed.
(i) As per prosecution allegations, on 21.12.2022, Nishan Sharma s/o
Baldev Raj Sharma was apprehended on the basis of secret information from
bus stand, Amritsar by a police party headed by Inspector Rajwinder Kaur, SHO
of Police Station A-Division, Amritsar City. After making necessary statutory
compliances, his search resulted in recovery of 29,920 intoxicating tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg, Cosidol-100 SR tablets of Bluepen
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (ISO 9001:2015 certified company), manufactured by
Rapport Remedies, Dehradun with batch No. RRNT-11/049, RRND/11/038 and
T12217.
(ii) On interrogation, said Nishan Sharma suffered disclosure
statement on 22.12.2022 to the effect that he used to purchase the intoxicating
tablets from Nadeem r/o Rurki, Uttrakhand and that he had to
Page 3 of 31
3 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
handover/supply the aforesaid tablets to Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu. He
also disclosed that earlier also, he had supplied the tablets to said Rajiv Kumar
@ Gourav @ Mannu and other associates many times. It was also disclosed
that said Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu used to further sell the tablets to
others and that said Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu had given him (Nishan
Sharma) ₹60,000/- for bringing the intoxicating tablets and that after adding
the remaining amount, he had brought the tablets for ₹1,10,000/- from
Nadeem.
(iii) On the basis of aforesaid disclosed statement of Nishan Sharma,
petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu and Nadeem were nominated in
the FIR. Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu was arrested on 22.12.2022 and drug
money of ₹29,300/- was recovered from him. On interrogation, said Rajiv
Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he
was habitual of selling intoxicating tablets, which he used to purchase from co-
accused Nishan Sharma; that he had given ₹60,000/- in advance to Nishan
Sharma for purchasing the intoxicating tablets and remaining amount was to be
given to him after selling the contraband. Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu and
Nishan Sharma were produced before ld. Area Magistrate along with the
parcels of the contraband and proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act
were initiated.
(iv) During course of further investigation, the firm M/s Rapport
Remedies situated in Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand was
inspected on 23.12.2022 by the officials of Punjab Police Drug Control
Department along with officers of Drug Control Department of Dehradun.
Accused Usman Rehman, the in charge and partner of the firm was present. It
was found that manufacturing drug license of the said firm had been canceled
vide letter dated 28.10.2022 of the competent authority, which had been
received by the firm on 03.11.2022. Despite cancellation of its license, the firm
continued to manufacture the intoxicating tablets containing Tramadol
Hydrochloride as active ingredient in its different brands of various batches. It
Page 4 of 31
4 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
was further found that the said firm had sold 85000 capsules of Chelcidol-50;
1,44,000 tablets of LOS DOL 100 SR and 1,76,000 tablets of Cosidol 100 SR to
M/s Bluepen Laboratories Private Limited, Dehradun vide different invoices of
21.11.2022, 10.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 i.e., even after intimation of
cancellation of its drug manufacturing licence. However, on inspection no
physical stock of the dosage containing Tramadol Hydrochloride as active
ingredient was found; and as per the register of the raw material, stock in hand
of Tramadol Hydrochloride was Nil. Spot Inspection Memo was prepared.
Usman Rehman, owner of the firm was nominated as accused.
(v) Thereafter, on the same date as 24.12.2022, the firm M/s Bluepen
Laboratories Pvt. Limited was inspected by the officers of Punjab Police Drug
Control Department along with the officers of Drug Control Department of
Dehradun (Uttrakhand). Inspection was conducted in the presence of Manoj
Kumar Sahu, the competent person, authorized signatory as well as Director of
the said Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited. Said firm was found to hold a valid
wholesale drug license, granted on 11.09.2021 and valid up to 10.09.2026. It
was found that said firm had purchased 85,000 and 3,20,000 tablets from
Rapport Remedies. On inspection of the sale record, the company was found
to have sold the intoxicating tablets to A-Pharma, Shop No. G-27, R.K. Plaza,
Plot No.5, Sector 21, Rohini Phase II, Delhi vide an invoice dated 11.11.2022.
The firm was further found to have sold intoxicating tablets to various other
firms by way of different invoices. The firm was found to have stocked 85,000
capsules of Chelcidol and 3,20,000 tablets of Casidol, containing Tramadol
Hydrochloride as an active ingredient, having purchased the same from M/s
Rapport Remedies. The same were found to have been manufactured by M/s
Rapport Remedies after the date of cancellation of its manufacturing license.
Thus, the company M/s Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited, having purchased
the drugs from manufacturing firm, after cancellation of the license, was found
to have violated the conditions of the drug license. All the aforesaid intoxicating
tablets were taken in possession as per law/rules.
Page 5 of 31 5 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959 CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962 (vi) Accused Usman Rehman was arrested on 25.12.2022 and on
interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting to have sold 85,000
intoxicating capsules and 3,20,000 intoxicating tablets to Manoj Kumar Sahu of
M/s Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. He also disclosed that he could get the
recovery effected from the premises of Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited. Said
Usman Rehman further disclosed that apart from selling the narcotic capsules
and tablets to the aforesaid Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited, he was also
selling the same to various other marketing firms through Bluepen Laboratories
Pvt. Limited and M/s Basumed Health Care Pvt. Ltd. to one Suraj Sharma,
owner of A-Pharma, and even had supplied directly to Nadeem resident of
Roorkee; and that Nadeem used to further sell the intoxicating tablets/capsules
to other persons of Punjab State; and that on his direction, Nadeem also used
to sell the same to Nishan Sharma in Amritsar and also to A-Pharma, Sector 21,
Rohini, Delhi. Said Usman Rehman also disclosed about his knowledge of phone
number and addresses of Nadeem and above said A-Pharma.
(vii) On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Usman Rehman,
the documents relating to drug license of the firm A-Pharma of Rohini, Delhi
were verified from Drug Control Board Delhi, which revealed Suraj Sharma to
be owner and Nitin Kumar to be the competent person of the said firm.
However, Suraj Sharma was found to be not residing at the address given in his
Aadhar card. The firm A-Pharma was not found to be working at the given
address, as neither any medicine nor any bills etc. were lying there. Nitin
Kumar, the competent person of the firm was found to be present at home,
who told that he had never met Suraj Sharma. Photograph of Suraj Sharma
affixed on the license was shown to Nitin Kumar, but he expressed his
ignorance about any such person and told that he had appended his signature
for obtaining the license on the asking of Sanjeev Kumar Arora @ Sanjiv Arora
from the drug department, for ₹3000/- per month.
(viii) Nitin Kumar led the police team to the shop of Jan Aushadhi at
Vikas Puri, where Sanjeev Kumar Arora was found. Said Sanjeev Kumar Arora
Page 6 of 31
6 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
also showed his ignorance regarding any person by the name of Suraj Sharma
by telling that he neither met him nor he identified the person on the
photograph affixed on the drug license. However, said Sanjeev Kumar Arora
admitted to have got prepared the file of drug license of A-Pharma and further
told that they were also running one more firm in the name of medical store
M/s A-One at Chemist J.J. Colony, Sanda Ghevra Delhi and that license of that
firm had also been got issued by preparing the documents in the name of Preeti
Devi and Anku Kumar like documents prepared for A-Pharma. Upon
verification, the shop of A-One was found to be closed, whereas residential
address of Preeti Devi was found to be fake. Thus, involvement of Sanjeev
Kumar Arora and Nitin Kumar was found for obtaining the drug license by
submitting false documents in the name of fake firms and for running the
business of intoxicating medicines in huge quantity. Both of them were
arrested on 31.12.2022, having violated Section 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act
and Section 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC.
(ix) Drug licenses issued in the name of aforesaid fake firms i.e.
A-Pharma and M/s A-One Chemist, were canceled by the competent authority.
On interrogation, during police remand, accused Nitin Kumar suffered
disclosure statement on 02.01.2023 that Rishi Kumar son of Rama Bali of West
Delhi used to deliver the intoxicating tablets at firm A-Pharma and also used to
bring the sale consideration amount. As such, said Rishi Kumar was nominated
as co-accused in the case and arrested on 07.01.2023. Drug money of ₹4 lakh
was recovered from him.
(x) During his custodial interrogation, Rishi Kumar suffered disclosure
statement, as per which he along with Rajan Kumar and his distant brother-in-
law namely Santosh Prashad were involved in drug paddling of intoxicating
tablets, which they used to purchase from Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand. The consignment of intoxicating tablets was
transported through Delhi and that it was the responsibility of Rajan Kumar and
Santosh Prashad to get released the consignment from transporters and the
Page 7 of 31
7 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
drug proceeds were distributed amongst them. Said Rishi Kumar further
disclosed that he and Santosh Prashad used to invest drug proceeds in their
chemist shop namely A-One Chemist and that it is Santosh Prashad, who had
sent him to accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora for preparing the file of A-Pharma in
the name of Suraj Kumar. The retail license of A-One chemist was prepared in
the name of Preeti Devi, who is the wife of accused Santosh Prashad @ Dr.
Rajesh.
(xi) On the basis of above disclosure statement, Rajan Kumar was
nominated as accused in this case and was arrested on 08.01.2023. On
interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement on similar lines as of Rishi
Kumar and also told that they had hired one Auto Rickshaw of Sumeet for the
purpose of transporting the intoxicating tablets and that the same were
received in Punjab from Manoj Kumar Sahu, owner of Bluepen Laboratories
Pvt. Limited, on the basis of fake bills of other medicines, being used in daily
routine. Said Rajan Kumar further disclosed that he along with Rishi Kumar and
Santosh Prashad @ Dr. Rajesh had kept 10 to 15 boxes of intoxicating tablets
in a house at Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi taken as rent in his name. The said
disclosure statement made by petitioner Rajan Kumar resulted into recovery of
15 boxes containing 3,56,800 intoxicating tablets containing Tramadol
Hydrochloride, from the disclosed place, which were taken into possession as
per rules.
(xii) During the course of further investigation, Manoj Kumar Sahu,
owner of Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited, was arrested on 14.02.2023 and
recovery of 19,700 intoxicating tablets, 14,832 intoxicating capsules and 45,925
intoxicating injections were effected from him.
(xiii) The recovered intoxicating materials were sent for necessary
analysis at FSL. Reports have been received and after concluding the
investigation, final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed qua
accused Rajan Kumar, Nishant Sharma, Usman, Nitin Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar
Page 8 of 31
8 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
Arora, Rishi Kumar and Manoj Kumar Sahu, though charges are yet to be
framed. Co-accused Santosh Prashad @ Dr. Rajesh, Suraj Sharma, Vikrant
Tomar, Nadeem Ahmed and Sumeet, are yet to be arrested.
4.1 Five of the accused namely Rajeev Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu,
Uman Rehman, Nitin Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Arora @ Sanjiv Arora, Rajan Kumar
filed following different five petitions seeking regular bail: –
CASE NO. TITLE
CRM-M-12639-2023 Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu Vs. State of Punjab
CRM-M-35076-2023 Uman Rehman Vs. State of Punjab
CRM-M-23126-2023 Nitin Kumar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
CRM-M-13056-2023 Sanjeev Kumar Arora @ Sanjiv Arora Vs. State of
Punjab
CRM-M-31064-2023 Rajan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab
4.2 All the abovesaid five petitions were dismissed by this Court vide a
common order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-8 in CRM-M-25524-2024).
CRM-M-25524-2024
5. Thereafter, petitioner/accused-Rajeev Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu
filed CRM-M-25524-2024 before this Court contending that earlier his petition
bearing CRM-M-12639-2023 and petitions of four other co-accused had been
rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023, but later on, after the
dismissal of the bail petition of the petitioner and the co-accused, Ld. Judge,
Special Court, Amritsar had already granted regular bail to co-accused Sanjeev
Kumar Arora and Nitin Kumar Singh vide orders dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-
10) and 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-11), respectively, despite the fact that bail to
them had also been declined by this Court on 23.08.2023. It was pleaded by the
petitioner that his case was similar to that of Sanjeev Kumar Arora and Nitin
Kumar, but when he applied for bail before the Trial Court, it was declined by
Page 9 of 31
9 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
the Court on 06.04.2024 vide 2024 (Annexure P-12). Ld. Counsel prayed for bail
on basis of parity.
CRM-M-26362-2023
6. On behalf of the petitioner-Rishi Kumar, it has been contended
that said accused has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused Nitin Kumar, so petitioner is entitled for bail, since said Nitin Kumar
has already been allowed bail by the Special Court, Amritsar; that no recovery
was effected from the said petitioner-Rishi Kumar and that there is nothing to
show that recovery of ₹4 lakh allegedly recovered as drug money from him
pertain to the sale and purchase of any drug; and that petitioner is in custody
for the last more than one year, as trial is likely to take long time.
7. In the above CRM-M-25524-2024, pertaining to petitioner-Rajiv
Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu, following order was passed by this Court on
12.09.2024: –
“In compliance of the previous order dated 08.08.2024, affidavit of Smt.
Neeraj Azad, Deputy District Attorney (Prosecution), Amritsar has been placed
on record along with certified copy of the second bail application, which was
moved by co-accused Nitin Kumar before the Court of Sessions.
By way of detailed order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by
this Court, bail petitions of the 05 co-accused namely Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @
Mannu, Uman Rehman, Nitin Kumar Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Arora @ Sanjiv
Arora and Rajan Kumar were dismissed by this Court in a case arising out of FIR
No. 305 dated 21.12.2022 registered at Police Station Division-A, Police
Commissionerate, Amritsar under Section 22 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
One of those accused namely Rajiv Kumar @ Gourav @ Mannu has now
approached this Court for seeking bail.
The contention of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the earlier bail
petition of the petitioner along with the co-accused by this Court vide order
23.8.2023, two of the co-accused namely Sanjeev Kumar Arora and NitinPage 10 of 31
10 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962Kumar Singh have been allowed bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar vide order dated 15.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 respectively (Annexure
P-10 & P- 11), despite the fact that bail to them was also rejected by this Court
by way of Annexure P-8. However, when he (petitioner) Rajeev Kumar applied
for the bail, the same Presiding Officer rejected his petition vide order dated
06.04.2024 (Annexure P-12).
This Court noticed on 24.05.2024 that there was no reference
whatsoever of the order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) as passed by this
Court, in the orders dated 15.03.2024 & 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-10 & P-11)
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. In these circumstances,
the respondent- State was asked to inform this Court as to whether the order
dated 23.08.2023 of this Court was brought to the notice of the concerned
Sessions Court, when the bail applications of the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar
Arora and Nitin Kumar Singh were considered and allowed. It was informed on
the last date of hearing i.e., 08.08.2024 to this Court that the order had been
conveyed to the AAP concerned. The Court again directed to file the affidavit
of AAP, who was appearing before the Court of Sessions as to whether the
order of this court was brought to the notice of the Court of Sessions or not.
Today, affidavit of Mrs. Neeraj Azad, Deputy District Attorney,
(Prosecution), Amritsar is placed on record by respondent-State, as per which
the entire record was produced before the Court concerned and attention of
the trial Court was drawn towards the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this
Court, whereby the bail petitions of co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora and Nitin
Kumar had earlier been rejected by this Court but still the trial Court allowed
bail to both of them. Along with this affidavit, copy of bail petition of Nitin
Kumar, which was moved before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge is
also placed on record, in which also he made specific reference of the fact that
his earlier petition had been rejected by this Court on 23.08.2023.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, comments of Shri Ravinderjit
Singh Bajwa, Judge, Special Court Amritsar/ Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar be called as to in what circumstances he has allowed the bail toPage 11 of 31
11 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962accused Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar by way of orders Annexure P-10
and P-11, despite dismissal of their earlier bail petition by this Court on
23.08.2023 vide Annexure P-8. Said comments be called for 23.10.2024.
In the meantime, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar be directed to
send the complete files of bail application No. 1315 of 2024 (CNR
No.PBAS010034212024) decided on 15.03.2024 vide Annexure P-10; and that
of bail application No. 2437 of 2024 (CNR No.PBAS010063672024) decided on
23.04.2024 (Annexure P-11) in sealed cover before this Court, which must
reach prior to the date fixed before this Court.
In the meantime, learned State counsel has also undertaken before this
Court that State shall move necessary petitions before this Court for
cancellation of the bail granted to co- accused Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev
Kumar Arora.
Request of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, made at the fag end, so as to
withdraw this petition, is hereby declined.”
8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, comments of Shri Ravinderjit
Singh Bajwa, Judge, Special Court Amritsar/ Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar
were received vide letter N: 172 dated 5th October, 2024 through Ld. District &
Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
CRM-M-55801-2024 and CRM-M-55802-2024
9. In the meantime, the State of Punjab moved CRM-M-55801-2024
and CRM-M-55802-2024 seeking cancellation of bail granted by Ld. Judge,
Special Court, Amritsar to accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora
respectively.
10.1 In these two petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to
accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora, it is contended on behalf of the
petitioner-State of Punjab that despite order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court,
rejecting the bail to the respondents Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora
Page 12 of 31
12 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
along with three other accused and despite the observations of this court to
the effect that entire facts and circumstances of the case revealed that that all
the co-accused persons were involved in running a racket of illicit drugs, which
after being manufactured at Rapport Remedies were being marketed through
Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited and were being further sold to the fake firms
created by Sanjiv Arora and co-accused Nitin Kumar and the consignments
were transported through Delhi and being further sold in various parts of
Punjab, the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar has granted the bail to these
two respondents by ignoring the observations made by this Court.
10.2 It is contended by ld. State Counsel that the order dated
23.08.2023 of this Court was specifically brought to the knowledge of the
learned Judge, Special Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by the Ld.
Deputy District Attorney, Amritsar representing the prosecution at the time of
arguments, as mentioned by her in her affidavit dated 04.10.2024 submitted
before this Court in compliance of the directions contained in the order dated
08.08.2024. Besides, there was no change in the circumstances after dismissal
of the bail petition by this Court warranting grant of bail by the learned Judge,
Special Court /Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
10.3 It is contended further that in the bail petition moved by
respondent-Nitin Kumar before learned Judge, Special Court /Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar, he had specially mentioned that his regular bail
application under Section 439 Cr.PC had been rejected by the High Court vide
order dated 23.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-23216-2023 and the said fact was
also brought to the notice of the Court of learned Judge, Special Court /
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by the ld. Deputy District Attorney,
Amritsar at the time of arguments, but still the Court proceeded to grant him
bail despite there being no change in circumstances and by ignoring the order
passed by this Court.
10.4 With these contentions, ld. State counsel seeks cancellation of bail
granted to respondents – accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora.
Page 13 of 31 13 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959 CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962 CR No.2447-2024 11.1 In CR No.2447-2024, the State of Punjab has prayed to set aside
the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the trial Court of Ld. Judge, Special
Court, Amritsar, whereby the respondent Nitin Kumar has been discharged for
the offences under the provisions of the NDPS Act.
11.2 After giving brief facts of the case, the State in this petition has
given the summary of the recoveries effected from the eight accused arrested
in this case as under: –
(i) Nishan Sharma son of Baldev Raj Sharma resident of Near Babbu
Councilor, Near Sadar Police station, Amritsar
(Date of arrest: 21.12.2022)
(Recovery: 29920 intoxicating tablets)
(ii) Rajiv Kumar alias Saurav alias Mannu son of Satish Kumar, resident of
Gali Kandhari Wali, Loon Mandi, Amritsar;
(Date of arrest: 22.12.2022)
(Recovery: Drug money of Rs. 29,300/-)
(iii) Usman Rehman son of Shri Noor Mohammad, resident of C15, Sana
Colony, Tunnel Road, Dehradun (Uttrakhand).
(Date of arrest: 25.12.2022)
(Recovery: 85,000/- capsules of brand name CHELCIDOL- 50, 1,44,000
Tablets of LOS DOL 100 SR and 1,76,000/- with the total of 03,20,000/-
intoxicant tablets)
(iv) Nitin Kumar Singh son of Vinod Kumar resident of House No. 141,
Second Floor, (Respondent/accused) Sector 21, Rohini, Delhi.
(Date of Arrest: 31.12.2022)
(Recovery: documents of firm A-Pharma)
(v) Sanjeev Arora son of Late Madan Lal Arora, resident of MG- 1/69,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi;
(Date of Arrest: 31.12.2022)
(Recovery: CPU from which he has prepared and uploaded
forged/fictitious documents of the drug departure.)
Page 14 of 31
14 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
(vi) Rishi Kumar son of Rama Bali resident of Ropawali Saraiya, District
Muzaffarpur, Bihar,
(Date of Arrest: 07.01.2023)
(Recovery: 3,56,800 intoxicant tablets jointly with co accused Rajan
Kumar and Rs. 4 lakh Drug money)
(vii) Rajan Kumar son of Late Mitlesh Prashad resident of Chainpur, District
Saran, Bihar,
(Date of Arrest: 08.01.2023)
(Recovery: 3,56,800 intoxicant tablets jointly with co- accused Rishi
Damar.)
(viii) Manoj Kumar Sahoo son of Bhaskar Chandar Sahoo, House No. B-102,
Rock Valley Apartment, Sewla Kalan, Dehradun;
(Date of Arrest: 14.02.2023)
(Recovery: 45,925 intoxicant injections, 14,925 intoxicating capsules and
19,700 intoxicant tablets)
Total Recovery: 99832 intoxicant capsules, 726420 intoxicant tablets,
45,925 intoxicant injections and Rs.42,9300/- drug money.
11.3 It is contended by the State that respondent-accused Nitin Kumar
was nominated as co-accused on the basis of disclosure statement dated
28.12.2022 suffered by co-accused Usman Rehman, disclosing that he used to
sell intoxicating tables in wholesale to co-accused-Suraj Sharma, the owner of
A-Pharma through his other firms namely, Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited
and M/s Basumed Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and the remaining stock of the
intoxicating tablets was in the knowledge of Suraj Sharma. On the basis of this
disclosure statement of co-accused Usman Rehman, Suraj Sharma was
nominated but during investigation, no such person in the name of Suraj
Sharma was found and while the Investigating Officer raided the house of co-
accused Suraj Sharma, they met the respondent-Nitin Kumar and it was found
that he had given his certificate to Suraj Sharma without any verification. It was
further found during investigation that said respondent-Nitin Kumar had
Page 15 of 31
15 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
signed/forged documents in the name of the company A-pharma to facilitate
the supply and sale of intoxicating tablets by them at the instance of co-
accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora, who had promised to pay ₹3,000/- per month to
him for that purpose. The documents related to the company A-pharma were
recovered from the possession of respondent-Nitin Kumar and thus, these acts
of the respondent fall within the ambit of Section 29 of the NDPS Act read with
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B/34 of the IPC.
11.4 It is contended further that it has also been found during
investigation that the drug manufacturing license of M/s Rapport Remedies
owned by Usman Rehman was already cancelled on 28.10.2022. Trial Court has
ignored the fact that there is clear evidence on record that licenses prepared by
respondent-Nitin Kumar have been found to be fake licenses, which was used
by the other co-accused for running the illicit business of manufacture and
supply of the intoxicating tablets and capsules.
11.5 Apart from above, Ld. State counsel has also drawn attention of
this Court towards the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court, whereby
the bail petition of five co-accused including Nitin Kumar was rejected, wherein
this Court had specifically discussed the role of Nitin Kumar, stating therein that
he was also involved in the racket. It is contended that trial Court ignored the
settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charge, the trial
Court is required only to see the prima facie case as to whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and the Court is not
required to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. It is argued that at
the stage of considering the charge, Court is required to evaluate the material
evidence on record with a view to find out the facts emerging therefrom taking
them at their face value and disclosing the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the offence and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial
Court is not legally sustainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mauvin Gobindo Vs. State of Goa, AIR 2018 SC 749, wherein
Page 16 of 31
16 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
it has been held that Court should apply a prima facie standard, while framing
the charge against the accused and at that stage, there cannot be a roving
enquiry in the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if
conducting a trial. Reliance has also been placed on State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Mohanlal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583.
11.6 With these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the impugned
order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the trial Court, discharging the respondent
Nitin for the offences under the provisions of NDPS Act, with a further prayer to
add the provisions of NDPS Act along with already charged offences under
Section 420, 468, 471 and 120B/34 IPC.
12. Along with the aforesaid CR-2447-2024, the State also moved
application bearing CRM-47914-2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 129 days in filing the criminal revision.
13. The respondent of the aforesaid petition i.e. Nitin Kumar filed
reply opposing the application for condonation of delay.
14. This Court vide separate order dated 21.01.2025 has disposed of
CRM-47914-2024 by condoning the delay of 129 days in filing the revision.
Reply on behalf of Nitin Kumar (respondent in CR No.2447-2024)
15. Separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nitin to the
petition for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2024. It is contended therein
that ld. Special Court has come to a specific conclusion that from the
unrebutted case of the prosecution qua the petitioner (Nitin), the sole
allegations against him related to the signing of certain documents in lieu of
salary of ₹3000/- as a competent person, which was later on misused in
obtaining license of firm M/s A-Pharma by co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora and
so, at best the same constituted offences under IPC and not under NDPS Act
and as such, the order discharging the respondent Nitin Kumar under NDPS Act,
is well justified. It is also contended that there is complete lack of mens rea or
Page 17 of 31
17 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
active participation of respondent Nitin Kumar in the recovery of intoxicating
drugs. It is also argued that disclosure statement of the co-accused or that of
the respondent are not admissible. With these submissions, prayer is made for
dismissal of the petition.
Reply on behalf of Nitin Kumar (respondent in CRM-M-55801-2024)
16. In reply to CRM-M-55801-2024, seeking cancellation of bail by the
petitioner-State, it is contended by respondent Nitin Kumar that he was
discharged by the trial Court on 05.04.2024 from the provisions of NDPS Act
after considering all the facts and circumstances and the evidence collected
during investigation, which revealed that only recovery of some fake
documents was effected from him for obtaining the license of firm A-Pharma,
which did not attract the provisions of NDPS Act and that it is only after the
discharge from provisions of NDPS Act that he has been allowed bail by the
Court on 23.04.2024. It is also contended that before allowing bail, the
respondent had already suffered pre-trial incarceration for a period of almost 1
year and 6 month and therefore, there is no justification for cancellation of the
bail granted to him.
Reply on behalf of Sanjeev Kumar Arora (respondent in CRM-M-55802-2024)
17. In reply to CRM-M-55802-2024 filed by the State, it is contended
by the respondent of this petition namely Sanjeev Kumar Arora that as per the
evidence on record, it was found that the only allegation against him was that
he had helped the other co-accused in the preparation of forged and
fabrication of license in the name of A-Pharma and there was no other
allegation against him about his involvement in the alleged crime and
therefore, trial Court did not commit any error in granting bail to him.
Respondent has justified the order dated 15.03.2024, whereby bail was allowed
to him by the trial Court.
Stand of State in CRM-M-26362-2023 & 25524-2024
Page 18 of 31
18 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
18. The State of Punjab has opposed the bail petitions of Rishi Kumar
as well as Rajiv Kumar by pointing out their involvement in the crime and the
specific role as attributed to both of them.
19. This court has considered submissions made by Ld. Counsels for
both the sides and have perused the record.
20. As per the settled proposition of law, it is well established principle
that once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming
circumstances for its cancellation. However, at the same time, equally
important is to note that bail can be revoked by the Superior Court, if the Court
granting bail has ignored the relevant material available on record as has been
observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab,
2021 SCC Online SSC 854.
21. In State Through Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 AIR
961, it has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that:
“Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail
already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a
non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of
bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and
large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom
during the trial.”
22. In Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction
between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a
Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana
[(1995) 1 SCC 349)] observed that:
Page 19 of 31
19 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962“Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already
granted. (Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail,
already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on
the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”
These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan
(2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar
Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22“It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks
for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking,
the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions
granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative
materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials
placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner withoutPage 20 of 31
20 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”
23. In Myakala Dharmarajam Vs. The State of Telangana, (2020) 2
SCC 743, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: –
9. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the
order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of
justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima
facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material,
which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the
High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in canceling the bail.”
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.658 of 2022
(arising out of SLP (Crl) NO.27 of 2022) titled as Imran Vs. Mr. Mohammed
Bhava and another decided on 22.04.2022, has held as under:
“26. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already granted by a
lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of
superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the
relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact
have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail
is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set
aside. Moreover, the decisions cited herein above, enumerate certain basic
principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application
for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix,
which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of
bail must also be exercised by having regard to the above-mentioned well-
settled principles”.
25. It is thus, clear that an appellate or a Superior Court can set aside
the order granting bail, if the Court granting bail did not consider the relevant
factors and where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities
resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant
Page 21 of 31
21 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into
account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of
bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in
canceling the bail. Said position of law has been made further clear by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.680 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl)
No.3155 of 2018 titled as M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 26.07.2021.
26. Keeping in mind the abovesaid legal position, it is required to be
seen by this Court as to whether the bail granted by Ld. Judge, Special Court,
Amritsar to accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora deserve to be
cancelled or not.
27. In the order dated 23.08.2023, by which this Court had rejected
the bail petitions of these two accused along with three other accused, it was
observed by this Court as under: –
“15. Coming to the case of petitioners Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev
Arora, their role is not as simple as is projected by their ld. respective counsels.
Perusal of General Diary Report No.32 dated 31.12.2022 (Annexure P2 in CWP-
M-23126-2023) would reveal that after obtaining the certified documents from
the drug department of A-Pharma company, to whom the contraband drugs
were being supplied by Bluepen Laboratories Pvt. Limited manufactured by
Rapport Remedies, the documents revealed Suraj Sharma to be its owner and
Nitin Kumar Singh to be its competent person. However, investigation revealed
that there was no person in the name of Suraj Sharma residing at the address
mentioned in his Aadhar card. Petitioner Nitin Kumar Singh despite being the
competent person of A-Pharma, but ironically, did not know any person by the
name of Suraj Sharma nor even identified his photograph affixed on the drug
license of the firm despite the fact that the documents revealed Suraj Sharma
to be owner thereof and petitioner Nitin Kumar Singh being the competent
person of the said firm. Not only this, no medicine or any bill was found at the
given address of A-Pharma, clearly indicating that the firm was fake and thePage 22 of 31
22 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962firm name was being used just as a camouflage, so as to trade in the illicit
drugs.
16. As per petitioner Nitin Kumar Singh, it is on the asking of Sanjeev Kumar
Arora that he appended his signature on the relevant documents for obtaining
license in the name of A Pharma, on being given ₹3000/- per month. Sanjeev
Kumar Arora, who got prepared the documents for obtaining drug license in
the name of A-Pharma, also did not know any person by the name of Suraj
Sharma. Not only this, the interrogation of Sanjiv Kumar Arora revealed that he
had also created another fake firm by the name of M/s A-One with its owner
as Preeti Devi but on verification, the shop, the address of which was
mentioned in the license of A-One was found to be closed and residential
address of Preeti Devi was found to be fake.
17. Thus, the investigation prima facie revealed the involvement of both the
petitioners Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Arora in creating fake firms,
which used to sell intoxicating tablets in the States where the sale of illicit
drugs is banned. As it appears that prima facie, it is Sanjeev Kumar Arora,
who is the de facto owner of A-Pharma and A-One, which was dealing in the
sale and purchase of contraband drugs and it is because of this involvement
of two accused-petitioners Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Arora that
Sections 27A and 29B of the NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and
120B/34 IPC were added. Commission of the said offences is writ large on file
having regard to attribution to both of them.
18. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the specific role
attributed to the two accused Nitin Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Arora,
none of them are held to be entitled for grant of regular bail.’[Bold portion emphasised in this order]
28. In the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by ld. Special Court,
Amritsar, which has been assailed by the State of Punjab in CR-2447-2024, it
Page 23 of 31
23 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
has been observed by the Court, while discharging the respondent-accused
Nitin Kumar for the offences under NDPS Act, as under: –
“5. The only allegation against the applicant-accused is that he prepared
forged and fabricated documents in the name of A. Pharma company at the
instance of co-accused Suraj Sharma who had promised him a sum of
Rs.3000/- per month for that purpose. That bare allegations taken on face
value lead to the conclusion that case of applicant-accused does not fall within
the provisions of section NDPS Act. At the most it can be said that there is
prima-facie case against the applicant-accused of cheating and preparation of
forged documents.
Accordingly, I am of the considered view that applicant- accused Nitin Kumar
Singh is entitled to be discharged from the NDPS Act. However, he can be
charged for cheating and forgery as per allegations made in the challan
submitted by the police…………”
29. The aforesaid observations made by the Special Court, while
discharging the accused Nitin Kumar from the provisions of the NDPS Act, run
totally contrary to the observations made by the High Court in the order dated
23.08.2023, as have been reproduced in para No.27 above, in which it was
clearly mentioned that the investigation prima facie revealed involvement of
accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora in creating fake firms, which
used to sell intoxicating tablets in the States, where there sale of illicit drugs is
banned and it appeared that prima facie it is Sanjeev Kumar Arora, who was de
facto owner of A-Pharma and A-One, which was dealing in the sale and
purchase of contraband drugs and it is because of this involvement of the two
accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora that Sections 27A and 27B of the
NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B/34 IPC were added and that
commission of the said offences was writ large on the file having regard to the
attribution to both of them.
Page 24 of 31 24 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959 CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
30. The Special Court completely ignored the above observations
made by this Court without even making any reference whatsoever of the
order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court, which was absolutely not warranted. The
final report under Section 173 CrPC had already been presented by the State
when the order dated 23.08.2023 was passed by this Court. There is nothing to
show that after the order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court, any new material was
filed by the prosecution before the Special Court so as to justify the discharge
of accused Nitin Kumar from the provisions of NDPS Act. Besides, Ld. Judge,
Special Court completely ignored well established principle of criminal law that
at the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is required only to see the
prima facie case as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused or not and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to
conclude whether the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the
accused.
31. As such, the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Special Court,
discharging the accused Nitin Kumar from the provisions of NDPS Act, is
absolutely not sustainable and the said order is hereby set aside. Trial court
concerned is hereby directed to reconsider the charge in the light of
observations as made above.
32 Consequently, CRR-2447-2024 filed by State of Punjab is hereby
allowed.
CRM-M-55801-2024 and CRM-M-55802-2024
33. Coming to CRM-M-55801-2024 and CRM-M-55802-2024, whereby
State has sought cancellation of bail granted to accused Nitin Kumar and
Sanjeev Kumar Arora by way of orders dated 23.04.2024 and 15.03.2024
respectively by Ld. Judge, Special Court, these orders have again been passed
by the Court by completely ignoring the observations made by this Court in
order dated 23.08.2023.
Page 25 of 31 25 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959 CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
34. It is very important to notice that when Nitin Kumar applied for
bail before the Court of Ld. Judge, Special Court, after the order dated
23.08.2023 of this Court, he specifically mentioned that his CRM-M-23126-2023
had not been allowed by this Court as per order dated 23.08.2023. He sought
bail on account of the fact that he had since been discharged vide order dated
05.04.2024 from the provisions of the NDPS Act.
35. The perusal of the order dated 21.04.2024 passed by the Special
Court would indicate that the Court did not even refer to the order dated
23.08.2023 of this Court, whereby the bail to accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev
Kumar Arora had earlier been rejected by this Court after making the
observations as have already been reproduced in para No.15 to 17 of the order
dated 23.08.2023.
36. Similarly, accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora has been allowed bail by
the Special Court on 15.03.2024 by completely ignoring the observations of this
Court as referred above. It is despite the fact that accused Nitin Kumar not only
disclosed before the Special Court about the dismissal of his bail petition by this
Court on 23.08.2023, even ld. Deputy District Attorney, Amritsar representing
the prosecution at the time of arguments, as per her affidavit dated 04.10.2024
submitted before this Court, clearly informed the ld. Special Court about the
order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court.
37. However, the orders dated 15.03.2024 granting bail to Sanjeev
Kumar Arora and order dated 23.04.2023 granting bail to Nitin Kumar by the
Special Court would reveal that these are absolutely silent about the order
dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court. There is not even a whisper about the
order passed by this Court, thus completely ignoring the said order.
38. It may further be noticed that this Court vide order dated
12.09.2024 in CRM-M-25524-2024, called for the comments of Sh. Ravinderjit
Singh Bajwa, Judge Special Court, Amritsar/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar
as to in what circumstances he had allowed the bail to accused Nitin Kumar and
Page 26 of 31
26 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
Sanjeev Kumar Arora despite dismissal of their bail petitions by this Court on
23.08.2023.
39. Comments of the officer vide letter dated 05.10.2024 have been
received through the office letter dated 08.10.2024 of Ld. District & Sessions
Judge, Amritsar. The comments of Sh. Ravinderjit Bajwa, Judge Special Court,
Amritsar/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, the concerned officer read as
under: –
“I would like to submit my explanation as per order dated 12.09.2024 of
the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. I would like to bring to your kind
notice that applicant Nitin Kumar Singh was granted bail by this court vide its
order dated 23.04.2024 on the ground that after presentation of charge sheet
a discharge application had been moved on his behalf. That vide order dated
05.04.2024, this court had discharged accused Nitin Kumar Singh under the
provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. But it was
held that charge under the provisions of Indian Penal Code regarding cheating
and forgery would be framed against him. That as the second bail application
for Nitin Kumar Singh was subsequently filed only on the ground that he has
been discharged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 therefore, he ought to be allowed bail under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, this court allowed the bail to him vide its order dated
23.04.2024 only on the ground that he has been discharged under the
provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and only
charges under the Indian Penal Code need to be framed. If your Honour has
come to the conclusion that applicant-accused Nitin Kumar Singh need not to
have been discharged under the provisions of NDPS Act. Then I would like to
submit my sincerest apology for the same. Copy of the discharge order is
attached for your kind perusal.
That bail application of applicant-accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora was
presented before the Duty Judge on 27.02.2024 and it was subsequently noted
upon the report of Ahlmad that this is the first bail application of applicant-
accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora. That in title of the bail application, it mentionedPage 27 of 31
27 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962as second petition for bail by applicant-accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora. But in
para No.18, it was stated that this is the first petition for bail as previous one
has been dismissed as withdrawn. It was also stated in para No.17 of the bail
application that a similar bail application is neither pending nor decided by the
Hon’ble High Court. That due to the above said averments in petition, I had
granted bail to Sanjeev Kumar Arora vide order dated 15.03.2024. That the
earlier bail application of this applicant-accused had been dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court was not brought to the notice of this court. Under these
circumstances, bail to applicant-accused Sanjeev Kumar Arora was granted by
this court. That I would further submit my sincerest apology for granting bail in
spite of the fact that the earlier bail application had been dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court. Copy of bail application of the applicant Sanjeev Arora is
attached for your kind perusal.
I would further like to bring to your kind notice that due to rush of work
and the fact that undersigned after promotion had recently started court work
in the month of July 2023, therefore, it was lack of experience which could
have led to undersigned granting bail to applicant-accused Sanjeev Kumar
Arora.
40. It is apparent from the aforesaid comments that the officer that he
has not denied about the fact that the order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court had
been brought to his notice by the Deputy Public Prosecutor representing the
Prosecution before him, when he allowed bail to Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev
Kumar Arora. He has justified the bail granted to Nitin Kumar on the ground
that he had earlier been discharged from the provisions of the NDPS Act. He
has simply stated that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that Nitin
Kumar was not required to be discharged under the provisions of the NDPS Act,
then he expresses his sincere apology without commenting as to why he has
ignored the observations made by this Court specifically in para No.17 of the
order dated 23.08.2023 of this Court.
Page 28 of 31 28 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959 CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959 CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
41. It is thus clear that Ld. Judge, Special Court, Amritsar while granting
bail to accused Nitin Kumar and Sanjiv Arora did not consider the relevant
factors and by ignoring the relevant material indicating prima facie involvement
of these accused. Thus, the impugned orders granting bail to accused Nitin
Kumar and Sanjiv Arora suffer from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage
of justice.
42. Having noticed all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held
that ld. special Court was not at all justified in granting regular bail to accused
Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora by ignoring the order dated 23.08.2023
of this Court. As such, both the impugned orders as assailed by the State of
Punjab, whereby the bail has been granted to these accused, are hereby set
aside. The bail granted to Nitin Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Arora is hereby
cancelled. Both of them are directed to surrender before the concerned
Special Court, on or before 03.02.2025, who shall immediately send them to
judicial custody.
43. As such, both the petitions i.e. CRM-M-55801 & 55802-2024 are
hereby allowed.
CRM-M-26362-2023
44. Coming to CRM-M-26362-2023, whereby accused Rishi Kumar has
sought regular bail, the only contention raised on his behalf is that since he has
been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Nitin and
the said Nitin was allowed bail by the Special Court, therefore, he should also
be allowed bail as there is nothing to indicate recovery of ₹4 lakh to be
connected with the sale and purchase of any drug.
45. The aforesaid contention is devoid of any merit, firstly on the
ground that bail granted to Nitin Kumar by the trial Court has already been
cancelled by this Court as per the aforesaid order and secondly, it is not only
the recovery of ₹4 lakh as drug money from him, the recovery of 3,56,800
Page 29 of 31
29 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
intoxicating tablets have also been effected from said accused Rishi Kumar
jointly with co-accused Rajan Kumar.
46. For above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that accused Rishi
Kumar is not entitled for grant of regular bail and as such, his petition CRM-M-
26362-2023 is hereby rejected.
CRM-M-25524-2024
47. Coming to CRM-M-25524-2024, earlier bail petition of the
petitioner-Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu had been rejected by this Court on
23.08.2023. There is no change in circumstances. It may also be noticed that on
12.09.2024, counsel for this petitioner-Rajiv Kumar Arora had made a request
so as to withdraw the petition. That request was declined by this Court. It is
observed by this Court that since there is no change in circumstance, so there is
no justification to grant regular bail to him.
48. As such, bail petition of the petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @
Mannu i.e. CRM-M-25524-2024 is also hereby rejected without commenting on
the merits of the case.
49. All the aforementioned five petitions i.e. CRM-M-55801-2024,
CRM-M-55802-2024, CRR-2447-2024, CRM-M-26362-2023 and CRM-M-25524-
2024 are hereby disposed of accordingly.
50. A copy of this order be also sent to the Hon’ble Administrative
Judge of Sessions Division, Amritsar for his information and taking appropriate
action, if deemed fit, against Sh. Ravinderjit Singh Bajwa, Ld. Judge, Special
Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in the light of detailed observations
as have been made by this Court in this order.
51. The original files of Bail Application No.1315 of 2024 (CNR
No.PBAS010034212024) decided on 15.03.2024 and that of Bail Application
No.2437 of 2024 (CNR No.PBAS010063672024) decided on 23.04.2024, which
Page 30 of 31
30 of 31
::: Downloaded on – 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012959
CRM-M-55801-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-55802-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRR-2447-2024 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-26362-2023 2025:PHHC: 012959
CRM-M-25524-2024 2025:PHHC: 012962
were received from the ld. District Judge, Amritsar in compliance of the order
dated 12.09.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-25524-2024, be returned
back.
52. PDF copy of this order be also sent immediately to the concerned
Court of ld.Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, for
necessary compliances.
53. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
28.01.2025 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Page 31 of 31
31 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2025 06:44:43 :::