Full Text
BAIL APPLN. 634/2012
TONGBRAM ROHINDRO SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.B.Goswami, Mr. Sapan Biswajit & Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.21/2011 under Section
9A/22/25A/29 of NDPS Act, 120B of I.P.C. read with Section 18/20 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 registered at PS Special Cell, District New Delhi on that ground that he is in custody since June, 2011 and that he was arrested on the disclosure statement of co-accused Naresh
Kumar and Umesh Mehra, who have already been released on regular bail by trial court vide order of 21st May, 2012. However, petitioner was declined bail by the trial court vide order of 25th February, 2012. To contend that mere membership of a banned organization will not make a person criminal, reliance was placed by petitioner’s counsel upon
2013:DHC:1855 Bail Appln. No.634/2012 Page 2 decisions in Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 380 and Arup
Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that recovered substance
Phenylpropanolamine cannot be termed as a psychotropic substance and so petitioner deserves bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had drawn attention of this Court to the detailed status report to point out that the recovered substance is widely used for manufacturing of psychotropic substance like amphetamine, cathinone, 4-methylaminorez etc. as per report of experts from AIIMS and the role of petitioner-accused is also highlighted therein. The relevant extract from the status report relied upon by respondent-State is as under:-
"The recovery of 1 kg controlled substance from the same bag containing belongings of accused T.Robindro in hotel, statement of Hotel manager who identified accused and stated about stay of accused in Hotel Sapna and other evidence proves the involvement of accused T.Robindro in present case. It is therefore, requested that the recovery is of very huge quantity. The money earned from this business is again rerouted to procure logistics, to run training camps and to procure arms and ammunition for the banned terrorist outfit and to fight against the Indian Army. Further, the investigation is at a very crucial stage and is pending.
Accused belongs to Manipur and is also not having any permanent address in Delhi. If he be granted bail, chances are there of his jump the bail.
As T.Robindro is the main coordinator of the KCP so when he was approached to join the illicit drugs trade by
Chirom Tiken @ Prem Kumar Sunil Meitie @ Lenin Kumar
@ Prakash [Commander-in-Chief and publicity secretary of
Bail Appln. No.634/2012 Page 3 KCP (Mobile Task Force) in April, 2011, he got agreed to work with him. On the directions of Chirom Tiken one hardcore cadre of KCP namely Bikram met T.Robindro in
Manipur and gave him Rs.3 lakh. T.Robindro assured him to return Rs.6 lakh within a week. During the course of investigation it was revealed that T.Robindro is running the whole racket of drugs and red sandalwood smuggling. He is front face of the KCP (banned terrorist outfit). He used to generate funds through the illicit trade and reroute the same to procure arms and ammunition for the outfit. His disclosure statement has also been corroborated by the intercepted calls."
According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State, petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Naresh Kumar and
Umesh Mehra, who have been granted bail because they were not charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Sub-section 5 of Section 43D of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 places an embargo upon grant of bail to persons accused of committing offence under the aforesaid enactment. Abovesaid provision reads as under:-
"43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code- x x x x
JUDGMENT
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case Bail Appln. No.634/2012 Page 4 diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true." Upon hearing both the sides, upon perusal of FIR of this case, status report and the decisions cited, it prima facie appears that the disclosure statement of which reference is there in the status report has corroboration from intercepted calls. So, the ratio of the decisions relied upon would be of no avail and the bar raised by Sub-Section 5 of Section 43D of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 instantly applies. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the alleged offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed without commenting upon the merits of this case and with direction to trial court to make all endeavours to expedite trial of this case. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge APRIL 11, 2013 vn