Krishan Kumar Arora And Anr vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors

Facts

This judgment concerns multiple petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 72 dated 23.5.2020, registered under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Sections 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The FIR was registered at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala. The case involves the recovery of large quantities of pharmaceutical tablets, including Clovidol 100 SR, from various individuals alleged to be part of a drug trafficking gang. The petitioners are individuals arrested or nominated in the investigation, with the State of Punjab and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as respondents in some cases. The proceedings involve challenges to the denial of bail or seeking bail in the context of ongoing investigations and arrests.

Held

The Court decided each petition on its individual merits, with most petitions being dismissed as withdrawn. In CRM-M-22170 of 2021, the Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The reasoning was that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, was nominated based on the interrogation of a co-accused (Jatinder Kumar), was produced on production warrants, and crucially, no recovery was made from him. The Court noted that the evidentiary value of the co-accused's statement would be a matter for trial and that the petitioner was in custody when named. With the investigation complete and challan presented, bail was granted. For other petitioners, including those who sought bail on medical grounds or argued about their GST registration and accounting practices, the Court permitted withdrawal of their petitions with liberty to approach the appropriate court or revive their prayer at a later stage, often sensing the outcome of their arguments. The Court explicitly clarified that observations made in the judgment would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether to grant regular bail to the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in cases involving alleged large-scale recovery of pharmaceutical tablets, which are stated to be manufactured by a company and distributed through a network. The petitioners, through their counsel, argued various grounds for bail, including: (1) that they were not named in the FIR, (2) that they were nominated based on the interrogation of co-accused, (3) that no recovery was made from them, (4) that they were in custody when named by co-accused, (5) that investigation was complete and challan presented, (6) that they were registered dealers under GST with licenses for manufacturing and storing drugs, and (7) that the sale and purchase of recovered tablets were duly accounted for. The State counsel opposed the bail applications, highlighting the large recoveries made, the involvement of the petitioners in a network, and the existence of other material indicating their modus operandi. In one instance, a petitioner sought bail on medical grounds for his wife. In another, a petitioner sought bail based on the fact that he was a transporter who received and sent parcels, and alleged false implication.