Bittu Ram vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The case involves multiple petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in 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 pertains to a gang involved in the sale and purchase of narcotics. During investigations, significant quantities of various pharmaceutical tablets, including Clovidol 100 SR, were recovered from multiple individuals. The petitioners are accused of being part of this network, involved in the manufacturing, storage, and distribution of these substances. The recoveries involved large quantities of tablets and drug money. The petitioners include individuals named in disclosures, those from whom recoveries were made, and directors of the manufacturing company.

Held

The Court addressed multiple petitions seeking regular bail. In CRM-M-22170-2021, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was that there was no recovery from the petitioner, they were named by a co-accused (Jatinder Kumar), the evidentiary value of this statement would be subject to trial, and importantly, the petitioner was already in custody when named by the co-accused. The investigation was complete, and the challan had been presented. The Court found these factors sufficient for granting bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds. For other petitions, including CRM-M-29957-2021, CRM-M-24747-2021, and CRM-M-24850-2021, the respective learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the petitions with liberty to revive the prayer at a later stage, sensing the outcome. These petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The Court clarified that observations made in the order would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail given their alleged involvement in a large-scale drug racket involving the manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical tablets, as evidenced by substantial recoveries? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the evidentiary value of statements made by co-accused, leading to the nomination of certain petitioners, is sufficient to deny bail at the pre-trial stage? (Question of law) 3. Whether the fact that a petitioner was in custody when named by a co-accused and that no recovery was made from him warrants the grant of bail? (Question of fact) Petitioner Arguments (where recorded): - In CRM-M-29957-2021, the petitioner argued they are a registered GST dealer with a license for manufacturing and storing drugs, and the sale/purchase of recovered tablets was duly accounted for. - In CRM-M-22170-2021, the petitioner argued they were not named in the FIR, nominated based on a co-accused's interrogation, produced on production warrants, and no recovery was made from them. Revenue/State Arguments (where recorded): - In CRM-M-29957-2021, the State argued that apart from recoveries from the company premises, other tablets recovered were manufactured by the company and there was other material showing the petitioner's modus operandi. - In CRM-M-22170-2021, the State argued the petitioner was a drug peddler involved in three other FIRs. - In CRM-M-24747-2021, the State argued the petitioner was named by three co-accused and there was a heavy recovery from him.