IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

M. Cr. C. No. 6794/2020

APPLICANT : Mohammad Irfan Khan S/o

Abdul Karim Khan, aged about
31 years, Caste – Musalman,
R/o Ward No. 2, Nagari, Distt.
Dhamtari, (C.G).

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT/ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh,

RESPONDENT Through, Station House
officer, Police Station –
N.D.P.S. Raipur Regional Unit,
Panchshil Nagar, civil Lines
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

COMPLAINANT/ : 2. Directorate of Revenue

OBJECTOR Intelligence, through Deputy
Director, Raipur Regional Unit
Unit, 30, Pancsheel Nagar,
Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur (C.G).

OBJECTION AGAINST THE GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL

The objector/complainant named above, most humbly and

respectfully begs to submit as under: -

1. That, applicant has filed the present bail application under Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of bail which is
pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That, the present objector is the complainant in crime bearing no.

01/2019 registered at Police Station – N.D.P.S. Raipur Regional
Unit, Panchshil Nagar, civil Lines Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
wherein on the complaint made by the objector is marked &
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1.

3. That, in the aforesaid complaint it is alleged that the culprit Md.

Irfan Khan was having a knowledge about the aforesaid truck that
was loaded with 906.51 Kilograms of Ganja, and the same was
being transported to another state.
4. That as per the statement dated 03-01-2020 of Anurag Soni who is
engaged in the business of renting construction related vehicles,
he got a phone call on night of 29-10-2019 from the number
9009755077 for towing of a truck from which the said Ganja was
recovered. The statement of Anurag Soni is marked and annexed
as Annexure ___

5. That it is important to note here that the Irfan Khan in his

statement dated 12-06-2020 accepted the fact that he went to the
location where the abovementioned truck was in broke down
condition, he was very well aware of the fact that the said truck
was containing Ganja so he tried to tow the truck to go Jamgaon.
The statement of

This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed
while considering the application for bail moved by the accused
involved in offences under NDPS Act. 
In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh   and   Ors. 
1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated as under:

It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate   is  
required   to   be   adhered   to   and   followed.  
It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused
commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who   are
dealing   in   narcotic   drugs   are   instrumental   in
causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent  
young   victims,   who   are   vulnerable;   it   causes
deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are   a  
hazard   to   the   society;   even   if   they   are   released
temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious  
activities   of   trafficking   and/or   dealing   in
intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal  
profit   involved.  
This   Court,   dealing   with   the
contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act,
has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in
Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa
[(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:
24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised   activities
of   the   underworld   and   the clandestine   smuggling   of   narcotic  
drugs   and psychotropic   substances   into   this   country   and
illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have   led   to   drug  
addiction   among   a   sizeable
section of the public, particularly the adolescents
and students of both sexes and the menace has
assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent   years.  
Therefore,   in   order   to   effectively control   and   eradicate   this  
proliferating   and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious
effects   and   deadly   impact   on   the   society   as   a 11 whole,  
Parliament   in   its   wisdom,   has   made
effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985   specifying  
mandatory   minimum imprisonment and fine. 8.
To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the
market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of
offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail
during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in
Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any   justifiable  
reason   for   not   abiding   by   the
aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the   respondent-
accused   on   bail.  
Instead   of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-
economic consequences and health hazards which   would  
accompany   trafficking   illegally   in
dangerous drugs, the court should implement the
law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due
deliberation, has amended.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down broad parameters to be

followed while considering the application for bail moved by the
accused involved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs.
Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated as
under:
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is
required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that
in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons,
while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental
in causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent
young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a
deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if
they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue
their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants
clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.
This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment
under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect
of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of
Goa [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:

24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities
of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such
drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable
section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both
sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in
 the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate
this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious
effects and deadly impact on the society as a  whole, Parliament in its
wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of
1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market,
Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences
under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial
unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37,
namely,
7. (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of such offence; and
8. (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are
satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not
abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the
respondentaccused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view
of the harmful socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which
would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court
should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due
deliberation, has amended.”
9. 20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to
grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section
439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section
37 which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of
the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of
bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act,
unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application;
and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If
either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail
operates.
10. 21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than
prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of
such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
11.
12. That, it is important to note here that the legal notice sent by the
applicant states that the transactions between the applicant and
complainant were done in cash but, on perusal of the agreements
entered into between the complainant and the applicant it is clear
that all the transactions have been done through bank account
and not cash. That this clearly goes on to establish the fact that
legal notice sent by the applicant is false, frivolous and on baseless
grounds, and is resorted to just to evade his liability towards the
complainant, and to mislead the Hon’ble Court and the
Investigating Agency.
13. That the fact that the applicant is a highly influential person and
has connection with persons in power is clearly enumerated by the
fact that the complaint filed by the complainant in the CtizenCOP
application on 04.04.2020 was of no avail. Subsequently the
complainant was threatened by the applicant by way of sending a
legal notice on false and baseless grounds just to mentally harass
and torture the complainant and her family members. That it was
after this that the applicant filed a correspondence on 21.04.2020
to the Director General of Police, Raipur (C.G.); Senior
Superintendent of Police, District- Raipur (C.G.); and to the Station
House Officer, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). A copy of
the correspondence dated 21.04.2020 is marked and annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE A/6. That no action was taken by the
Police Authorities against the applicant and when inquired about
the same, the Police Authorities used to behave in a rude and
abrupt manner with the complainant dismissing her pleas. That it
was only on 26.05.2020 that the complainant received a phone call
on from the Office of the Superintendent of Police (City),
Chakarbhata, Bilaspur and was asked to record her statement so
that FIR can be registered against the applicant. In pursuance to
it, the complainant reported to the office of Superintendent of
Police (City), Civil Lines and got her statement recorded on
27.05.2020. But, even after that no action was taken by the Police
Authorities against the applicant. That after a period of 3 days
from the date on which the complainant gave her statement and
initial enquiry was made by the Police, the applicant sent a legal
notice to the complainant’s husband on ground of defamation
claiming damages of Rs. 1 Crore. That such act on the part of the
applicant made the whole family of the complainant feel
unprotected and to live under constant fear of the applicant. That
subsequently, the complainant once again filed a correspondence
before the Director General of Police, Raipur (C.G.) narrating the
above-mentioned state of events on 01.06.2020. A copy of the
correspondence dated 01.06.2020 is marked and annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE A/7. That it was only after such lengthy
and tiresome process that the FIR was registered against the
 applicant by the Police Station, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) on
15.07.2020.
14. That, it is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that
present applicant had preferred an application u/s 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail which
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court of 5 th Additional Sessions
Judge, Raipur (C.G.) on 20-07-2020 and while dismissing the said
application the Hon’ble Court clearly observed prima facie
involvement of the present applicant in the case registered against
him. Few paras of observation made by the Hon’ble Court is
reproduced herein: -
“ के स डायरी के अनुसार प्रार्थिया श्रीमती नयनश्री तिवारी प्रोप्राईटर शाम्भवी ट्रेडिंग कं पनी सिमरन सिटी द्वारा अनावेदक
आकाश सिंघल के विरुद्ध कोयला सप्लाई ना करने एवं ना ही रकम वापस करने संबंधी आवेदन थाना टिकरापारा मे प्रस्तुत की
थी। आवेदक पत्र की जांच कर पाया गया कि आवेदक आकाश सिंघल ए.एस.विडज को एनर्जी निवासी देवरीखुर्द द्वारा
आवेदक से रूपये प्राप्त होने के बाद भी बेईमानी एवं छल पूर्वक कोयला सप्लाई नही किया और न ही 15 लाख रूपये को
वापस नही किये जाने से आवेदक के विरुद्ध धारा 420 भा.द.सं. के तहत अभियोग है।
के स डायरी के अवलोकन से आवेदक के विरुद्ध पुलिस द्वारा संकलित की गयी साक्ष्य से प्रथम दृष्टया इस स्तर पर यह नहीं
कहा जा सकता कि उसे संबंधित अपराध में झूठा फसाया गया है। प्रार्थी ने आवेदक के विरुद्ध जो आरोप लगाया है , उसे
आवेदक ने अपने आवेदनपत्र में अपरोक्ष रूप से स्वीकार किया है। आवेदक की और से जो बचाव का आधार विद्वान
अभिभाषक ने लिया गया है वह प्रकरण के निराकरण के समय गुण-दोष के आधार पर विचारणीय है। प्रकरण में विवेचना जारी
है।
प्रकरण की उक्त समस्त परिस्तिथियों एवं आवेदक के विरुद्ध के स डायरी में उपलब्ध तथ्यों व थाना प्रभारी, थाना-
टिकरापारा, रायपुर के प्रतिवेदन को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवेदक को अग्रिम जमानत का लाभ दिये जाने हेतु यह उपयुक्त
मामला होना दर्शित नहीं होती है।”

A copy of order dated 20-07-2020 is marked & enclosed herewith

as ANNEXURE A/8.

15. That, it is pertinent to bring into the notice of this Hon’ble Court
that the applicant has acknowledged his liability towards the
complainant in a series of whatsapp conversations that took
between the applicant and the complainant’s husband i.e. Mr.
Sandeep Tiwari. The applicant has also acknowledged his liability
in the whatsapp conversations with the complainant. It is through
the same series of whatsapp conversations that it can be noticed
that the applicant has falsely and deliberately induced the
complainant and his husband to believe that he, the applicant, will
return the money taken as an advance for supply of coal. That the
 above-mentioned conversations also show the malafide intention
on the part of the applicant as he has deliberately tried to avoid to
return the money to the complainant and as such sent a false,
unwarranted and baseless legal notice to the complainant based
on false and frivolous grounds. The above-mentioned fact clearly
establishes the applicant’s direct involvement in this case.
Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. A copy of
the whatsapp conversations is marked and annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE A/9.

16. That, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Akash
Singhal (Present Applicant) is a Bhu-Mafia and is a highly
influential person and has very strong political connections which
is evident from the fact that various complaints have been filed
against the applicant in relation to various other cases but no
action has been taken by the police authorities or other officials of
the State Government against the applicant. That the present
applicant is a habitual offender and a number of cases of fraud
and forgery have been filed against him. A copy of the paper
clippings representing the fact that a number of cases has been
filed against the applicant before various Police Stations is marked
and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/10. Further, with his
strong political influence and financial background there is a great
possibility that the accused Akash Singhal may
influence/pressurize/threaten the witnesses and tamper with the
evidences. Moreover, trial in the present case is at very early stage
and statement of complainant and other material witnesses is yet
to be recorded before the Learned Trial Court. Therefore, looking
into the facts stated above the application for anticipatory bail filed
by the applicant should be rejected.

17. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2
SCC 565 dealing with the question of anticipatory bail speaking
through a Constitution Bench of 5 judges held that-

“There are several relevant considerations to be factored in, by the

court, while considering whether to grant or refuse anticipatory
 bail. Nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context
of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a
reasonable possibility of the accused’s presence not being secured
during trial; a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses might
be tampered with, and ‘the larger interests of the public or the
state’ are some of the considerations.”

Similarly, the above laid down law was reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2020 SCC Online SC 98, again speaking through a 5 Judge
Bench, it was held that-

“The Courts have to consider the nature of the offence, the role of
the accused, the likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation or tampering of evidence, including possible
intimidation of witnesses while granting anticipatory bail. …..

Also, whether anticipatory offences should be granted, in the given

facts and circumstances of any case, where the allegations relating
to the commission of offences of a serious nature, with certain
special conditions, is a matter of discretion to be exercised, having
regard to the nature of the offences, the facts shown, the
background of the applicant, the likelihood of his fleeing justice (or
not fleeing justice); likelihood of co-operation or non-co-operation
with the investigating agency or police, etc. …..

While weighing and considering an application (for grant of

anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the
offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including
intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country), etc. …..

Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the

nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the
applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a
matter of discretion. …..”
 That, it is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the
Applicant/Accused (in the present case) is a highly influential
person, is financially very sound and has strong political
connections, therefore, there is a high possibility that he will
certainly misuse the liberty to be provided by this Hon’ble Court
and will definitely try to threaten the complainant/objector & other
material witnesses as well as he will try to influence/pressurize the
state machinery to act in his favor. Thus, it is prayed before the
Hon’ble Court that the anticipatory bail application of the accused
person may be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

18. That, complainant/objector files an affidavit in support of this

objection.

19. That, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in
the light of submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly
prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to dismiss the anticipatory bail application filed by the
present applicant, in the ends of justice.

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
DATE: /08/2020 (SHARAD MISHRA, ADV)
COUNSEL FOR THE OBJCETOR
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

M. Cr. C. No. /2020

APPLICANT : Akash Singhal

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT/ : State of Chhattisgarh

RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nayanshree Tiwari, age 29 years, W/o Shri Sandeep

Tiwari, Proprietor- Shambhavi Trading Company, R/o House No.
32, Phase- 5, Mathpurena, Raipur (C.G.) do hereby state on oath
as under: -

1. That, I am the complainant/Objector in the present bail

application and as such I am conversant with the facts &
circumstances of the case.

2. That, the contents made in the said objection from para 1 to

9 have been drafted by my Counsel as per my instructions
which are true & correct to my personal knowledge and
belief.

3. That, I am submitting this affidavit in support of the said

objection.
 VERIFICATION

I, Nayanshree Tiwari, age 29 years, the deponent, do

hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit from paras 1 to 3
are true to my personal knowledge and belief. Verified and signed
on this day of ____________, 2020 at Bilaspur (C.G).

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

M. Cr. C. No. /2020

APPLICANT : Akash Singhal

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT/ : State of Chhattisgarh

RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS ANNEX. PAGE

NO.
1. Synopsis and dates and events A
2. Application under section 438 of
Criminal Procedure with affidavit
and certificate
3. Copy of the FIR dated 15.07.2020 A/1
4. Copy of the complaint filed in the A/2
CitizenCOP application dated
04.04.2020
5. Copy of the agreement dated A/3
15.01.2020 and the cheque,
bearing no. 000669, provided as
security
6. Copy of the agreement dated A/4
 07.03.2020 and cheque, bearing
no. 000670, provided as security
7. Copy of the false and baseless A/5
legal notice sent by the applicant
to the complainant dated
08.04.2020
8. Copy of the correspondence dated A/6
21.04.2020
9. Copy of the correspondence dated A/7
01.06.2020
10. Copy of the order dated 20-07- A/8
2020
11. Copy of the whatsapp A/9
conversations
12. Copy of the paper clippings A/10
representing the fact that a
number of cases has been filed
against the applicant before
various Police Stations
9. Memo of Appearance

Bilaspur, C.G. (SHARAD MISHRA, ADV)

Date: /08/2020 COUNSEL FOR THE OBJECTOR