Sarvothaman Guhan v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Applicant and co-accused persons recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act, which are inadmissible in evidence in view of the judgment of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC

1. Additionally, he states that the same has not been corroborated in any material particulars.

Court in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra Etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Anr. Etc., (1969) 3 SCC 429 which held that the prerequisites of a general conspiracy are existence of a common design and an integrated effort by all the participants. He submits these ingredients were absent in the case of the Applicant.

I. He states that there is statutory non-compliance of section 41 and

42 of the NDPS Act. On 04.08.2021, the Respondent received secret information in the morning hours (presumably) as they had located and apprehended the Applicant at 6 P.M. at the IGI airport. According to Section 41(1) NDPS Act, the Respondent can approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking warrant to carry out search and seizure operations. If there is sufficient time, which fact can be adjudged at the stage of trial, it is imperative that a judicial officer applies his mind to the requirement of such a warrant. In spite of having enough time, the Respondent did not approach the learned Magistrate under Section 41(1) NDPS Act.

12.30 AM on 05.08.2021 and then searched the Applicant‟s residence at 2.30 AM on 05.08.2021. This conduct of the Respondent – NCB renders the conduct as well as the recovery doubtful. M.The cash component of Rs. 15,52,300 recovered from Applicant‟s residence has also been explained by the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant‟s parents entered into an agreement to sell with one Manju on 03.06.2019 for sale of property situated at H. No. 186-G, Third Floor, Village Humayanpur, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 for which they received Rs. 16,30,000 in cash between 03.06.2019 and 20.04.2020. Hence, the money was received from sale of the house and cannot be termed proceeds from sale of contraband.

4. Mr. Bansal, the learned senior standing counsel for the NCB has made the following submissions:

Greater Noida have been carried-out in continuation and under direct supervision of the Superintendent, therefore, there is no violation of Section 42 NDPS Act. Further, on 06.08.2021, in compliance of section 57 NDPS Act, the I.O. had placed the Seizure Report with complete details of arrest and seizure to his immediate official superior. Hence, there is no non-compliance of section 42 NDPS Act.

No.2/Rahul Mishra is also corroborated from the statement of the applicant who stated he visited Goa with Rahul Mishra in last week of July, 2021 and had returned on 04.08.2021. The contention of the applicant questioning his connection and links with co-accused persons prior to recovery of contraband stands dislodged by the Applicant‟s own disclosure which led to recovery of contraband from the house of Accused No.2/Rahul Mishra.

Tofan Singh(supra)will not come to the aid of the Applicant from his culpability in the present case. Though confessional statements under section 67 NDPS Act may not be admissible but facts discovered in pursuance to the same would be admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).

I. Reliance is placed on Sambhav Parakh vs State of

Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 469 wherein the Court observed that when commercial quantity of illicit psychotropic substance is recovered from one accused, in view of section 29 of the NDPS Act, other co-accused from whom no recovery has been made are to satisfy the rigors of section 37 NDPS Act as they are presumed to be linked in the entire operation. The quantity of contraband recovered in the instant case is of commercial quantity from other co-accused persons and as such the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted qua the Applicant. The relevant para of Sambhav Parakh (supra) reads as under: “24. It is also to be seen that statements of two accused person have been recorded under Section 67 of the Act and they have named other accused persons as part of the entire operation. It is also to be kept in mind that the prosecution has filed the charge sheet for criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the Act. Thus, all the accused persons being part of a bigger drug cartel/mafia their act cannot be examined in isolation and on stand alone basis, but the whole case has to be treated as one of peddling of commercial quantity of illicit contraband.”

ANALYSIS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

I. No Recovery of Commercial Quantity of Contraband

6. Even assuming the best case of the Respondent – NCB, no commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the Applicant, either in person or from his residence. The Applicant was apprehended at the IGI Airport on 04.08.2021 where 0.45 grams ecstasy and 30 grams Ganja was recovered from him. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021, 1 kg ganja and cash amounting to Rs. 15,52,300 was recovered from the Applicant‟s residence. Thus, the recovery attributable to the Applicant is 0.45 grams ecstasy (small quantity) and 1 kg and 30 grams Ganja (intermediate quantity).

7. The recovery from Accused No.2/Rahul Mishra (1.050 kg of ganja) and Accused No. 3/Aashray Panday (410 grams of ganja) is not attributable to the Applicant. The Applicant named Accused No.2/Rahul Mishra as well as Accused No. 3/Aashray Panday in his section 67 statement however, the recoveries from them cannot be attributed to the Applicant since there is no material or any communication between the Applicant and Accused No. 2/Rahul Mishra on the date of the recovery.

8. The Applicant on 05.08.2021 in his section 67 statement said that Accused No. 3/Aashray Pandey messaged the Applicant while he was in the custody of the Respondent, asking him to come to Ambience Mall, Gurgaon to collect 410 grams of ganja. However, no chats/messages pertaining to the same have been found in either of their mobile as per the mobile phone data extraction report of the Applicant as well as Accused No. 3‟s mobile phones. The same shows that no messages to this effect were exchanged between the Applicant and Accused No. 3 on 05.08.2021. Thus, recovery from Accused NO. 3 is not attributable to the Applicant.

9. Even assuming NCB‟s argument that recoveries from Accused No.2/Rahul Mishra (1.050 kg of ganja) and Accused No. 3/Aashray Panday (410 grams of ganja) are attributable to the Applicant, then also the quantity of contraband recovered does not cross the threshold of commercial quantity in order to invoke the jurisdiction of section 37 NDPS Act.

10. Since there is no recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the Applicant, the rigors of section 37 NDPS Act are not applicable to the Applicant. In addition, the applicant in the complaint has not been arraigned under section 19, 24, 27-A of the NDPS Act.

11. The Respondent – NCB states that the Applicant and co-accused persons are inextricably linked and cannot be segregated. NCB has contended that according to the dicta in Sambhav Parakh (supra), the recoveries from co-accused persons is attributable to the Applicant by virtue of section 29 NDPS Act as the Applicant is intrinsically linked to the co-accused persons.

12. In my view, the contention of the NCB in this regard is misplaced in so far as the Respondent – NCB has not established the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 29 NDPS Act qua the Applicant.

13. The judgment of Sambhav Parakh (supra) is distinguishable in so far as apart from section 67 statements of three co-accused persons, there is nothing linking the Applicant with the other co-accused persons to establish a common design or integrated effort. I have dealt with the same under the heading „Mis-joinder of Charges‟ in subsequent paragraphs.

14. Reliance on Md. Nawaz (supra) is misplaced in so far as the applicant therein was apprehended in the car with the contraband. However, in the case at hand, all co-accused are separate and have isolated instances of recovery therefore, the level of scrutiny under section 37 NDPS Act is not attracted qua the Applicant.

15. As regards non-compliance of statutory provisions: -

II. Delay in filing Section 52A NDPS Act Application

16. The learned counsel for the Applicant states that there is an undue delay of 10 days in filing the application under section 52-A NDPS Act as the recovery from the travel bag of the Applicant was made on 04.08.2021 and from his residence on 05.08.2021 but the application under section 52-A NDPS Act was only filed on 16.08.2021.

17. In the present case, the Respondent NCB has furnished reasons for the delay in sending the sample to FSL. As per the Respondent, the delay was caused primarily due to non-working days on account of weekends and Independence Day. The seizure report was prepared on 06.08.2021 itself, however, the reasons furnished by the Respondent NCB for the said delay are not acceptable. Assuming non-working days on account of weekend and Independence Day caused a hindrance in submitting the application under section 52-A NDPS Act, even then the NCB took more than a week to file the said application which is merely a clerical formality that should not take so much time. The delay caused is a procedural lapse on the part of the Respondent agency, which renders the sample, suspect.

18. The contraband was seized on 05.08.2021 and the seizure report was filed on 16.08.2021. Merely making bald averments that it was a weekend and Independence Day will not suffice. According to the calendar for the year of 2021, 8th and 15th of August 2021, being two Sundays, were the only holidays, rest were working days. As valuable rights of the Applicant are at stake, the prosecution must show alacrity. NCB is a department dedicated to narcotics and once a full department is only dealing with narcotics, it does not lie upon the Respondent – NCB to say that 10 days is a reasonable time.

19. I have already held in BAIL APPLN. 253/2023 Kashif v. NCB (2023:DHC:3438) that reasonable time should be in the proximity of 72 hours. The relevant paras in Kashif (supra) read as under:

24. Hence, I am of the view that non-compliance of section 52A within a reasonable time gives rise to the apprehension that sample could have been tampered with and in case of a wrongly drawn sample, the benefit of doubt has to accrue to the accused. The prosecuting agency has to prove at the time of trial that the sample was immune from tampering.....

27. The application for sample collection under section 52A is not a technical application wherein elaborate reasons, principles of law or detailed facts are required. It is more of a clerical application and should mandatorily be made within a reasonable time under section 52A NDPS. The application has to be moved at the earliest and in case, the same has not been moved, the reasons for delay must be explained by the authorities. Reasonable time under section 52A

28. What is reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that an application for sample collection can be moved at the whims and fancies of the prosecuting agency. Therefore, taking cue from the Standing Order 1/88, it is desirable that the application under 52A should be made within 72 hours or near about the said time frame.”

20. Hence, on this reason alone, the applicant is entitled to bail. Nevertheless, there are other reasons which persuade me to allow the present application.

III. Discrepancy in Quantity of Contraband Recovered

21. There is a discrepancy in the quantity of the contraband recovered from the Applicant on 05.08.2021 and the quantity reflected at the time of sampling under Section 52A NDPS Act.

22. As per the panchnama, on 05.08.2021, Ganja weighing 1 kg was recovered from the Applicant‟s residence. The said contraband was kept in a Pulinda marked „R‟ and deposited at the godown of Respondent – NCB on 05.08.2021 and was kept there till 05.01.2022. At the time of sampling of the contraband substance for the purpose of section 52A NDPS Act, the weight of the Ganja was reflected as 972 grams, instead of 1 kg.

23. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi (supra) has observed:

24. This Court has categorically already held in Kadir v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi in BAIL APPLN. 553/2023:

29. Section 41(1) makes it clear that that if there is sufficient time, the judicial officer has to apply his mind to the requirement of a warrant. The facts of the present case seem to suggest that the Respondent had sufficient time to approach the Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest. Despite the same, the Respondent – NCB did not approach the learned Magistrate under Section 41(1) NDPS Act.

30. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent – NCB received secret information in late afternoon or evening. The Applicant was apprehended at IGI Airport at 6 PM on 04.08.2021. As per Section 41(1) NDPS Act, the Respondent – NCB was supposed to approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking warrant to conduct search and seizure operations. The same was not done by the Respondent – NCB despite having sufficient time. Additionally, no document has been provided to show that authorization was obtained from a qualified officer for search conducted at the Applicant‟s residence.

31. Furthermore, there is non-compliance of section 41(2) NDPS Act as the search of the Applicant‟s residence on 05.08.2021 at 2.30 AM was not authorized by the Respondent – NCB under section 41(1) NDPS Act. The panchnama dated 05.08.2021 records that the search was conducted under the directions of Superintendent Sh. Dhananjay Som but was not conducted in his presence. The same is corroborated by the list of witnesses to the panchnama which does not include the signature of the Superintendent (filed in Bail Appln. 4175 of 2021 @ Pg. 129/TCR).

32. In view of non-compliance of Section 41 NDPS Act, the Respondent – NCB was supposed to conduct the search at night in terms of the 2nd proviso to Section 42 NDPS Act which states that a building can be searched sans authorization so as to prevent the offender from escaping or affording an opportunity for concealment of evidence. The same can be done by the officer after recording grounds of his belief satisfying the aforesaid condition and forwarding the same to his immediate superior officer under section 42(2) NDPS Act. In the present case, the same has not been carried out by the concerned officer and hence, is a violation of section 42(2) NDPS Act.

33. Support is sought from the judgment of the Apex Court viz., Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513 wherein it was observed as under:

23. In this case non-recording of the vital information collected by the police at the first instance can be counted as a circumstance in favour of the appellant. Next is that even the information which PW 2 recollected from memory is capable of helping the accused because it indicates that the real culprits would have utilised the services of an autorickshaw driver to transport the gunny bags and it is not necessary that the autorickshaw driver should have been told in advance that the gunny bags contained such offensive substance. The possibility is just the other way round that the said culprits would not have disclosed that information to the autorickshaw driver unless it is shown that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other main culprits to transport the contraband. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show any such connivance between the appellant and the real culprits. There is nothing even to suggest that those culprits and the appellant were close to each other, or even known to each other earlier. Yet another circumstance discernible from the evidence in this case is that the police had actually arrayed two other persons as the real culprits and made all endeavour to arrest them, but they absconded themselves and escaped from the reach of the police.”

34. Hence, I am of the view that non-compliance of section 41 and 42 NDPS Act renders the recovery doubtful.

V. Unnatural Conduct

35. The recoveries are also rendered suspect in view of the unnatural conduct of the Respondent – NCB. The Applicant was apprehended at 6 PM on 04.08.2021 at IGI Airport. However, his bag was only searched after 3 hours at 9 PM at the NCB Office and not at the airport where independent witnesses were available aplenty. This casts a doubt on the recovery of 04.08.2021. Thereafter, the Respondent – NCB proceeded to search the residence of Accused No.2/Rahul Mishra at 12.30 AM on 05.08.2021 and then went on to search the Applicant‟s residence at 2.30 AM on 05.08.2021. No reasons have been given by the Respondent – NCB for the said conduct on their behalf. Such unnatural conduct of the Respondent – NCB renders the recovery suspect and doubtful.

36. There is no explanation given by the Respondent – NCB as to why the bag of the Applicant was not searched at the airport in the presence of independent witness but was searched at the NCB office. Further, no reason has been provided by the Respondent – NCB as to why the applicant‟s residence was searched at 2.30 AM after searching the house of co-accused, Rahul Mishra.

37. If an accused is apprehended in a public place, suspected of carrying contraband, the endeavour of the prosecuting agency in such a case should always be to search the accused for contraband at that public place itself where large numbers of independent witnesses are available. This lends considerable credibility to the search and seizure proceedings and inspires confidence regarding transparency of the said process.

38. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant was apprehended and arrested by the Respondent – NCB (who had secret information qua the Applicant, suspecting him of carrying contraband) at the IGI Airport. The normal and correct course of conduct expected of a prosecuting agency is to have searched the Applicant at the IGI Airport itself and seize the sample in the presence of independent witnesses. However, the Respondent – NCB has deviated from this course of conduct that casts a doubt on the recoveries of 04.08.2021 and 05.08.2021.

VI. Mis-joinder of Charges

39. The Applicant was not involved in general conspiracy with other coaccused persons. There is nothing on record to show that the Applicant was a member of the Telegram group „Orient Express‟ or any other group where buying and selling of narcotic substances was taking place. No pseudonym has been assigned belonging to the Applicant in the Telegram group „Orient Express‟. In fact, no connection between the Applicant and other co-accused persons has been alleged except with Accused No. 2, 3 and 4 who named the Applicant in their respective section 67 statements. The co-accused persons i.e., Accused No. 2, 3 and 4 have already been granted bail.

40. There is no communication, or any prima-facie material presented before this Court linking the Applicant and other co-accused persons except Accused No. 2/Rahul Mishra.

41. The Respondent – NCB has alleged that trafficking of narcotic substances in the syndicate occurred through bitcoins and other digital currencies but there is no evidence produced before this Court showing that the Applicant sent or received any bitcoins or had a bitcoin wallet. Therefore, in view of the same, the Applicant cannot be said to have been involved in a general conspiracy of drug syndicate with other co-accused persons.

42. The Applicant neither had any knowledge of the drug syndicate being operated by co-accused persons nor had any connection with the coaccused persons involved in the drug syndicate. Hence, the allegation of the Respondent – NCB to state that the Applicant was part of the general conspiracy with co-accused persons is misplaced.

43. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 wherein it was observed as under: “100. Lord Bridge in R. v. Anderson [(1985) 2 All ER 961: 1986 AC 27: (1985) 3 WLR 268 (HL)] aptly said that the evidence from which a jury may infer a criminal conspiracy is almost invariably to be found in the conduct of the parties. In Daniel Youth v. R. [AIR 1945 PC 140: 1945 All LJ 269] the Privy Council warned that in a joint trial care must be taken to separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against others. “A co-defendant in a conspiracy trial”, observed Jackson, J. (US p. 454), “occupies an uneasy seat” and “it is difficult for the individual to make his own case stand on its own merits in the minds of jurors who are ready to believe that birds of a feather are flocked together”. (Vide Alvin Krulewitch v. United States of America [93 L Ed 790: 336 US 440 (1949)].) In Nalini case [(1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] Wadhwa, J. pointed out, at p. 517 of SCC, the need to guard against prejudice being caused to the accused on account of joint trial with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed that: (SCC p. 517, para 583) “There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy.” The pertinent observation of Judge Hand in U.S. v. Falcone [109 F 2d 579 (2nd Cir, 1940)] was referred to: (SCC p. 511, para 572) “The distinction is especially important today when so many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders.” At para 518, Wadhwa, J., pointed out that the criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. The learned Judge then set out the legal position regarding the criminal liability of the persons accused of the conspiracy as follows: (SCC p. 518, para 583) “One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime.”

44. Further, the Apex court in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra (supra) held that the pre-requisites of conspiracy require a common design and integrated effort by all members, which is not the case with the Applicant here. The relevant paras read as under:

45. A perusal of above shows that there was no common design or integrated effort by the Applicant in conspiracy with other co-accused persons.

VII. Explanation for recovery of Cash from Applicant‟s residence

46. On 05.08.2021, an amount of Rs. 15,52,300 in cash was recovered from the Applicant‟s residence. The Respondent – NCB has alleged that the said amount of money recovered in cash forms part of proceeds of sale of contraband. The Applicant has furnished an explanation for the money recovered from his residence. The learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant‟s parents entered into an agreement to sell for property situated at H. No. 186-G, Third Floor, Village Humayanpur, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 with one Ms. Manju on 03.06.2019 and as payment of the said property, the Applicant‟s parents received a total sum of Rs. 16,30,000 in cash from the buyer between 03.06.2019 and 20.04.2020.

47. The Agreement to Sell and receipts in this regard have been annexed in the bail application.

48. It is also observed that apart from the Applicant‟s section 67 NDPS Act statement which is inadmissible in view of Tofan Singh (supra), the Respondent – NCB has not produced any other material to show that the money recovered in cash from the Applicant‟s residence was proceeds from sale of contraband.

VIII. Grounds of Parity

49. The co-accused persons who named the Applicant namely Accused No. 2/ Rahul Mishra, Accused No. 3/ Aashray Panday and Accused No. 4/ Jasbir Singh, Accused No. 6/ Naman Sharma and Accused NO. 11/ Devesh Vasa have been granted bail.

50. Accused No. 3/Aashray Panday was found to be in possession 0f 410 grams of Ganja (small quantity) which was recovered from him when he was on his way to deliver the parcel at Ambience Mall, Gurgaon. The allegation against Accused No. 4/Jasbir Singh was that he was involved in drug business through „dark net‟ and ordered drugs from USA and Canada for the purposes of reselling them in India. Accused No. 6/Naman Sharma was allegedly an admin of the Telegram group „Orient Express‟ and has been granted bail. Additionally, Accused No. 11/Devesh Vasa was found to be in possession of 05 blots of LSD weighing 0.05 grams (intermediate quantity).

51. In conclusion, there is no recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the Applicant thus, the rigors of section 37 NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case. Additionally, the Applicant was not part of the conspiracy with other co-accused persons as no pseudonym or chats have been attributed to him with respect to the „Orient Express‟ telegram group. Further, the recovery from the Applicant is doubtful in view of the discrepancy regarding the weight of contraband which was 1 kg at the time of seizure and 972 grams at the time of filing application under section 52A NDPS Act and also due to delay in filing section 52A NDPS Act application. The sample collection is also irregular, and no reasons have been given for not searching the bag of the Applicant at the airport. The non-compliance of section 41 and 42 NDPS Act also raises suspicion with regards to the recovery process and seized contraband. Further, the cash recovered from the residence of Applicant has been explained.

52. Additionally, the statement of the Applicant under section 67 NDPS Act does not lead to discovery of facts (as per section 27 of IEA). Section 27 of the IEA reads as under: “Section 27. How much of information received from accused, may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

53. The statements recorded under section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible being hit by section 25 IEA and the only way to make such statements admissible is by way of section 27 IEA which creates an exception and allows such part of a confessional statement, being information leading to discovery of some fact not in the knowledge of the Police to be proved.

54. Section 27 IEA will not be applicable qua the Applicant as in the present case, there is no discovery of „fact‟ based on the section 67 statement of the Applicant. At best, the Applicant in his section 67 statement has merely identified co-accused, Rahul Mishra and Aashray Pandey. Based on Rahul Mishra and Aashray Pandey‟s respective section 67 statement, the contraband has been recovered from them. Therefore, there is no discovery of „fact‟ within the purview of section 27 IEA as the Applicant has merely named and led the Respondent – NCB to the aforesaid co-accused persons.

55. All earlier cases against the Applicant are based on recoveries involving small quantities. The Applicant has stated that he is a consumer and not a seller. As per the Applicant, he was also arraigned in case arising out of NCB Case No. VIII/53/DZU/2021, however, he was discharged in the said case by the Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Patiala House District Court, New Delhi vide Order dated 31.03.2023 passed in S.C. No. 105/2022.

56. The complaint in the present case has been filed on 31.01.2022, and the Applicant is not required for further investigation. The case is currently at the stage of arguments on charge and the evidence is likely to take a considerably long time. Further, the Applicant was arrested on 05.08.2021 and has been in custody for more than two years, in a case involving intermediate quantity.In my view, the triple test i.e., a) flight risk; b) tampering with evidence and c) influencing of witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent bail conditions.

57. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed and the Applicant is granted bail in NCB Case VIII/46/DZU/2021on the following terms and conditions: i. The Applicant shall furnish a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ii. The Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing; iii. The Applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The Applicant shall not switch off, or change the same without prior intimation to the I.O. concerned, during the period of bail; iv. The Applicant shall join investigation as and when called by the I.O. concerned; v. In case the Applicant changes his address, he will inform the I.O. concerned and this Court also; vi. The Applicant shall not leave the country during the bail period and surrender his passport, if any, at the time of release before the Trial Court; vii. The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the bail period; viii. The Applicant shall not communicate with or come into contact with any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case.

58. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of the deciding the present bail application. They shall not have any bearing in deciding the merits of the case.

59. The application is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.