Read Order: Rinku Singh v. Union of India
Chandigarh, May 27, 2022: The Punjab and haryana High Court has denied the relief of anticipatory bail to the accused-Rinku Singh who was found to be indulged in the trafficking of Commercial quantity of Heroin from a Pakistani drug smuggler through India-Pakistan Border on the day of Baisakhi (April 13, 2021).
The smuggling racket was initially busted by the BSF personnel on duty.
In this case before The petitioner-accused was seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in case registered under Sections 8, 21, 23, 29, 61 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh.
Essentially, a complaint was filed by the Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh against Rinku Singh (petitioner), Gurpreet Singh @ Mangal and Babbu @ Satnam Singh under Section 36-A of NDPS Act with the allegations that specific information was received by Assistant Director, NCB, Amritsar that in April 2021, the troops of 52 BN, BSF recovered six packets of suspected Narcotics Drugs, one Mobile, one plastic bottle containing some liquid substance from the possession of one Indian national Gurpreet Singh @ Mangal Singh and that on further search of the area two more packets of the suspected Narcotics Drugs were recovered which the BSF wanted to hand over to the Narcotics Control Bureau.
On receipt of this information further proceedings were carried out and notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon the apprehended accused Gurpreet Singh @ Mangal Singh. During interrogation, he admitted that he came to collect the contraband on the asking of and in connivance with the present petitioner Rinku Singh and Babbu Singh @ Satnam Singh.
Thus, based on this disclosure, the present petitioner was also nominated in this case and complaint under Section 36-A of NDPS Act instituted against him and other co-accused.
The case of the petitioner’s counsel primarily was that no recovery was effected and that the petitioner was being implicated only on the disclosure statement of co-accused.
In reply, the NCB stated that the accused Gurpreet Singh was served with the notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 and he admitted the manner and factum of recovery. He further disclosed that around 10 days ago, he had met Babbu and Rinku where Babbu informed him and Rinku that he had contacts with Pakistani Smuggler and he would get packets of Heroin from him and they would get Rupees 02 Lakhs for each Packet.
Thereafter Babbu got him and Rinku and checked out the area of BOP Lakha Choki, BSF and Babbu further informed him and Rinku that on 13th April, the Pakistani Smuggler would come near the wire of BSF and on being signaled, they would throw the packets inside the Indian border and both of them have to pick those packets. Gurpreet further disclosed that on 13th April, he along with Rinku went to the area of BSF Chowki, Lakha Asli. When the Pakistani smuggler threw the packets of Heroin inside the Indian Border, the BSF arrived.
In this situation, Gurpreet hid the packets on his body and on his personal search after notice, the packets were recovered. Thus, the NCB stated in its reply that the present petitioner actively participated in the conspiracy and smuggling of commercial quantities of Heroin from Pakistan to India.
Also, regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy, it was argued in the reply that the co-accused Satnam Singh @ Babbu, after being arrested made statements u/s 67 of NDPS Act and disclosed that he knew Gurpreet Singh and Rinku. He informed them that they had to pick the packets of Heroin thrown by Pakistani Smuggler inside the Indian Border and they would get Rupees 02 lakhs for each packet.
He further disclosed that the present petitioner ran away from the spot and he identified the photographs of Gurpreet Singh and Rinku. Hence, the present petitioner was actively involved in the smuggling of Heroin and went to the BSF Chowki Lakhawali for receiving the commercial quantity of contraband from Pakistani Smuggler.
In light of the above, the Court was of the opinion that to run the network of illegal drug business, they had frequently communicated with each other and it was also proved by their CDR analysis. Also, the Court noted that all the co-accused specifically named the present petitioner and not only that, the co-accused also verified his photographs and disclosed in detail about the plan of smuggling of Heroin.
The petitioner was thus found indulged in the trafficking of Commercial quantity of Heroin after thorough investigation. Apart from the statements of co-accused, the Court held that there was substantial evidence against the petitioner in the form of call detail records.
Hence, the bail plea was dismissed.