IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-5108 of 2016 Date of decision : 01.06.2016 Baggu Khan ….Petitioner V/s State of Punjab & ors. ….Respondents

CRM M-5108 of 2016 1
CRM M-5108 of 2016
Date of decision : 01.06.2016
Baggu Khan
State of Punjab & ors.
Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the CBI.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that
investigation pursuant to FIR No.109 dated 27.11.2014, registered under
section 22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at
Police Station City-2, Abohar, District Fazilka, be handed over to some
independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation.
Petitioner has alleged that on 27.11.2014, while he was sitting
at home, some residents of the village namely, Alla Bux and Husain came
and asked him to accompany them to Abohar where they had some work.
They assured him that they would return in the evening. Petitioner sat
alongwith these two persons in a vehicle (Bolero Jeep bearing No.HR-26-
AX-5989). As the jeep crossed Rajpura barrier, they were apprehended by a
police party. Search of the jeep was conducted. It was found that there were
500 tablets of Caricoma and 95 vials of Rexcof. ASI Pawan Kumar along
with H.C. Satnam Singh and HC Hansraj took all the three persons to a
CRM M-5108 of 2016 2
nearby garden. The Station House Officer namely, Sahab Singh came there.
He took an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- from Alla Bux and Hussain and left
them along with Bolero Jeep. Petitioner alleges that the recovery of 500
tablets of Caricoma and 95 vials of Rexcof was thereafter planted on him
and FIR under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 was registered. According to him, this all happened
despite the fact that petitioner had no such record and never indulged in any
criminal activity. On the other hand, Alla Bux and Hussain had number of
other cases pending against them, as stated in para No.4 of the petition.
It appears, during pendency of investigation, an application was
submitted by father of the petitioner seeking an inquiry into the matter. This
inquiry was entrusted to Superintendent of Police, Abohar. After conducting
a detailed enquiry, he submitted report Annexure P-3 and arrived at a
conclusion that Baggu Khan was innocent. Operative part of the report reads
as under:-
“From my open and secret enquiry one thing come
to light that on 27.11.14, two persons from the village took
Baggu Khan in an allurement of drugs and it take confirmed
from the statements of villagers namely Allah Ditta and
Mohammad Aslam, who have specifically stated that two boys
of village on the pretext of delivery of articles for marriage
purpose for alongwith them, Sohan Lal, Birbal and Bhanwar
Lal also gave their statements recorded that on 27.11.14 Baggu
Khan met them standing on Abohar Bye Pass in the evening
and he told them that two boys of village took him at Abohar
for delivery of articles for marriage.
From my enquiry, it is clear that Baggu Khan was
brought from village by two boys of village by keeping him in
dark for supply of Drugs and Baggu Khan was having no
CRM M-5108 of 2016 3
knowledge about keeping by them any Narcotic substance
because he was addict of drugs due to this he accompanied
them. Although, he is not indulging in any business of selling of
On the basis of the report, prosecution moved an application
under section 169 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) seeking discharge of Baggu Khan.
This application was, however, rejected by the Special Court observing that
report of Superintendent of Police, Abohar carried no weight, thus no ground
was made out to discharge the accused. Admittedly, State did not choose to
challenge the order passed by the Special Court. Stand of the State is that
investigation thereafter remained pending. In the month of February, 2016
instant petition was filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of investigation to
an independent agency alleging false implication by the police. A copy of
the petition was handed over to the State on March 15, 2016. Matter came
up again before this court on March 31, 2016 when notice of motion was
issued. It appears that on the same day, State submitted the challan against
the petitioner before the Special Court at Fazilka.
It is evident that Superintendent of Police while conducting the
inquiry, recorded statements of number of residents of the village and
examined the documents. Admittedly they made statements in favour of the
petitioner. Their names as mentioned in the report are Mohammad Khan,
Mohammad Saleem, Allah Ditta, Mohammad Din Sarpanch, Allah Ditta
Member Panchayat, Sohan Lal and Bhanur Lal. Investigating agency placed
reliance upon the said report and sought discharge of the accused. However,
its application under section 169 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the court. In such a
situation, investigating agency had the option to challenge the order before a
CRM M-5108 of 2016 4
higher court. Instead it took summersault and decided to present chargesheet
against the petitioner. Stand of the State is that it presented the chargesheet
after thorough investigation. Inquiry by SP cannot be relied upon as
investigating officer was never associated with the same. Besides, petitioner
has right to defend himself before the trial court and raise all his pleas. No
interference by this court in its inherent jurisdiction is necessary.
False implication as alleged in this petition is a serious matter
which needs thorough probe. Fair investigation is a prime requisite to instil
confidence in the public. Their voice needs to be heard so that the truth
comes out. If there are basic faults in the investigation, it may give a reason
to this court to direct independent and impartial investigation by another
agency. In the instant case, foundation of this issue is based on the fact that
Superintendent of Police himself found that petitioner had been falsely
implicated and discharge of the accused was sought on this ground. Plea for
discharge having been rejected, the police decided to present a challan
against him. It is inexplicable why this course of action was adopted.
Petitioner alleges that SHO was bribed by Alla Bux and Husain to implicate
him in the instant case. Needless to observe false implication of a citizen in
a criminal case can ruin him, particularly in a special statute like NDPS Act
which contains stringent provisions. Right for a citizen under Article 21 of
the Constitution cannot be trampled by a shoddy, improper or biased
investigation. Accused can expect a fair trial only if it is preceded by a fair
investigation. Though this court does not intend to express any opinion on
the merits of the case, further investigation of the case is handed-over to
Central Bureau of Investigation which may look into all aspects of the
matter including false implication, if any. In case it finds that petitioner has
CRM M-5108 of 2016 5
been falsely implicated it shall be at liberty to initiate action against
concerned officials as per law. Entire record be furnished to said agency
within ten days from receipt of copy of this order. Petition is allowed in
these terms. Till the investigation is finalized by the CBI, trial Judge shall
not proceed with the trial. A status report be submitted within six weeks.
June 01, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Rajpal/Ajay JUDGE
Referred to Reporter? Yes

Related Images

Leave a Comment