Ajay Grover vs State Of Rajasthan

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 2

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

Due to consumption of illegally manufactured

.

spurious country made liquor, seven persons lost their lives

in January, 2022 and 14 others were injured. FIR

No.15/2022 was registered regarding this on 19.01.2022

under Sections 304, 308, 328, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39, 40 and 41

of the H.P. Excise Act at Police Station Sundernagar,

District Mandi. Petitioner is one of the accused persons

therein. He was arrested on 26.01.2022.

Vide order dated 05.05.2022, petitioner was

granted interim bail for a period of 21 days in Cr.MP(M)

No.819 of 2022 on account of alleged illness of his wife. In

the present petition, his prayer is for release on regular bail.

Even in this petition, Cr.MP No.1597 of 2022 was moved on

02.06.2022 seeking interim bail on the projected ground

that petitioner's wife was diagnosed with 'cancer of

endometrium' requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy

treatment. The reasons put forth in the application for

grant of interim bail were strongly disputed on facts by the

investigating agency in its status report. The application for

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 3

interim bail was eventually not pressed by the petitioner

and was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.06.2022.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

.

argued the instant bail petition on following two broad

heads:-

(i). The petitioner deserves to be granted statutory

bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Cr.PC).

(ii). On merits of the matter also, the petitioner

deserves to be enlarged on bail.

For convenience, the above grounds are

separately discussed hereinafter.

3. Statutory bail:-

For obtaining statutory bail, it was contended,

firstly that a defective police report was filed in the learned

trial Court by the investigating agency. Objection in this

police report was pointed out by the learned trial Court.

Secondly, that the police report was also incomplete. The

report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not made part of

the police report. The submission of learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner was that the defective police report was

filed only to defeat petitioner's right to get statutory bail

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 4

under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioner has a right to be

released on statutory bail.

3(i) In (2019) 14 SCC 599, Chapal alias

Ramswaroop and another Versus State of Rajasthan,

.

Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Section 167 of the code

has a definite purpose in that: on the basis of the material

relating to investigation, the Magistrate ought to be in a

position to proceed with the matter.............. The letter and

spirit behind enactment of Section 167 of the code

mandates that investigation ought to be completed within

the prescribed period....................... It is further stipulated

that on the expiry of period of ninety or sixty days, as the

case may be, accused person shall be released on bail if he

is prepared to furnish bail. In the said case, on the 90 th day,

there was no charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 of the

code for the concerned magistrate to assess the situation

whether on merits the accused was required to be

remanded to further custody. A charge-sheet filed on

05.07.2018, i.e. within the period prescribed under Section

167 of the Code, was returned to the investigating officer as

the same was not in terms of the order passed by the High

Court on 03.07.2018. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the

public prosecutor could have submitted before the High

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 5

Court on 03.07.2018 that papers relating to the

investigation were to be filed within the time prescribed and

a call thereafter could be taken by the Superior Gazetted

Officer whether the matter required further investigation in

.

terms of Section 173(8) of the code or not. Recourse to this

ideal situation was not resorted to. Since there were no

papers of investigation before the Magistrate concerned as

on completion of 90 days of prescribed period under Section

167 Cr.PC, therefore, the petitioners therein were held

Cr.PC.

r to entitled to be admitted to bail in terms of Section 167(2)

In 2022 (3) Scale 1, titled Serious Fraud

Investigation Office Versus Rahul Modi & Ors, the point

that arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court

was whether an accused was entitled for statutory bail

under Section 167(2) Cr.PC on the ground that cognizance

had not been taken by the Court before the expiry of 60 or

90 days as the case may be from the date of remand.

Taking note of its previous judgments including (2013) 3

SCC 77 (Suresh Kumar Bhikhamchand Jain Versus

State of Maharashtra and another), Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that once the charge-sheet is filed within the

stipulated period, the right of the accused to statutory bail

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 6

comes to an end. The accused thereafter would be entitled

to pray for regular bail on merits. Taking of cognizance is

not material to Section 167 of the code. Filing of a charge-

sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section

.

167 Cr.PC and that an accused cannot demand release on

default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that

cognizance has not been taken before expiry of sixty/ninety

days as the case may be. The relevant parts from the

judgment are as under:-

"8.

Section

The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an accused is entitled for statutory bail

under 167(2), CrPC on the ground that

cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand. Section 167(2), CrPC reads as below:

167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he

has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in

the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that --

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 7

grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding--

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or

.

imprisonment for a term of not less than

ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the

expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed

to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the raccused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced

before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the Page accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of

the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the

High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.--For the

avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long

as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.-- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 8 9. The issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra), as contended by the Appellant. It is necessary to closely examine the judgment passed in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). The petitioner in the said case was arrested on 11.03.2012 on the allegation of misappropriation of amounts meant for development of

.

slums in Jalgaon City. The petitioner therein was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 411, 406, 408, 465, 466, 468, 471, 177 and 109

read with Section 34, IPC and also under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The contention of the petitioner therein was that he could not have been remanded to custody in view

of cognizance not being taken for want of sanction within the statutory period of 90 days. The scheme of the provisions relating to remand of an accused first during the stage of investigation and thereafter, after cognizance

is taken, indicates that the legislature intended

investigation of certain crimes to be completed within the period prescribed therein, according to this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). This Court held that in the

event of investigation not being completed by the investigating authorities within the prescribed period, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to be granted bail,

if he offers to furnish bail. This Court was of the firm opinion that if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an

accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of charge-sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the accused on bail. However,

once the charge- sheet was filed within the stipulated period, the right of the accused to statutory bail came to an end and the accused would be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits. It was held by this Court that the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC and that taking of cognizance is not material to Section 167. The

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 9

scheme of CrPC is such that once the investigation stage is completed, the court proceeds to the next stage, which is the taking of cognizance and trial. During the period of investigation, the accused is under the custody of the Magistrate before whom he or she is first produced, with such Magistrate being vested with power to remand the

.

accused to police custody and/or judicial custody, up to a maximum period as prescribed under Section 167(2). Acknowledging the fact that an accused has to remain in

custody of some court, this Court concluded that on filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the accused continues to remain in the custody of the Magistrate till such time as cognizance is taken by the

court trying the offence, when the said court assumes custody of the accused for purposes of remand during the trial in terms of Section 309, CrPC. This Court clarified that the two stages are different, with one following the

other so as to maintain continuity of the custody of the

accused with a court.

10. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra) that filing of a charge-sheet is sufficient

compliance with the provisions of Section 167,CrPCand that an accused cannot demand release on default bail

under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. The accused

continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the accused for the purpose of

remand after cognizance is taken. The conclusion of the High Court that the accused cannot be remanded beyond the period of 60 days under Section 167and that further remand could only be at the post-cognizance stage, is not correct in view of the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra).

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 10 15 A close scrutiny of the judgments in Sanjay Dutt (supra), Madar Sheikh (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra) would show that there is nothing contrary to what has been decided in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). In all the above judgments which are relied upon by either side, this Court had categorically laid down that the indefeasible right of

.

an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Reference to

cognizance in Madar Sheikh (supra) is in view of the fact situation where the application was filed after the charge- sheet was submitted and cognizance had been taken by the trial court. Such reference cannot be construed as this

Court introducing an additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing

of the charge-sheet within the statutory period. It is not

necessary to repeat that in both Madar Sheikh (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra), this Court expressed its view that non-filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory

period is the ground for availing the indefeasible right to claim bail under Section 167(2), CrPC. The conundrum relating to the custody of the accused after the expiry of

60 days has also been dealt with by this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). It was made clear that the

accused remains in custody of the Magistrate till cognizance is taken by the relevant court. As the issue that arises for consideration in this case is squarely

covered by the judgment in Bhikamchand Jain (supra), the order passed by the High Court on 31.05.2019 is hereby set aside."

3(ii) The first point raised by the petitioner is that it

was a case of filing of defective police report as objection in

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 11

it was pointed out by the learned trial Court, therefore, it

cannot be construed to be a proper police report. Filing of

improper and incomplete police report will not take away

petitioner's right to get statutory bail.

.

Petitioner's contentions do not hold much

substance. The FIR was registered on 19.01.2022. The

petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2022. Police report under

Section 173 Cr.PC was filed on 18.04.2022. This was within

the period of 90 days provided under Section 167 Cr.PC for

filing the police report. The investigating agency in its

status report has submitted that learned Trial Court's

objection to the police report was in respect of handwritten

statement of some of witnesses. This objection was met with

by the investigating agency. Typed copies of statements of

witnesses have since been supplied to the learned Trial

Court. The learned Court did not point out any objection

per-se in the police report.

3(iii) The direction of the learned trial Court to the

investigating agency to supply typed copies of handwritten

statements of certain witnesses accompanying the police

report/challan cannot be construed to imply that the

challan was defective. No objection was pointed out by the

learned Trial Court in the police report. The typed copies of

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 12

handwritten statements of the witnesses provided on the

directions of the learned Trial Court were for facilitation of

the Court. Such direction had no impact upon

appropriateness or validity of the police report.

.

3(iv) The MLCs of deceased persons mention that

deaths were caused due to methyl alcohol poisoning. All

these persons and several others injured had consumed

illegally manufactured spurious liquor. Chemical analysis

report of RFSL Mandi reports detection of methyl alcohol in

the dead bodies. CTL Kandaghat has found the liquor

samples as not fit for human consumption due to presence

of methyl alcohol. Chemical and forensic analysis reports

concerning the alleged illegal and spurious liquor are yet

awaited by the respondent. The report of State Forensic

Science Laboratory (SFSL) regarding handwriting of

accused persons is also awaited. The status report submits

that the reports on their receipt will form part of the

supplementary report to be presented before the Court.

Non-filing of SFSL report alongwith police report presented

by the investigating agency on 18.04.2022 will not make

the police report defective as alleged for the petitioner.

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. provides for further investigation in

respect of an offence after a report under Sub-Section 2 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 13

thereof have been forwarded to the magistrate. The

investigating agency is entitled to not only carry out further

investigation in respect of offences after submitting its

report under Section 173(2), but can also furnish further

.

evidence oral or documentary and further report regarding

such evidence. Provisions of Section 173(2) and (8) read as

under:-

"2 (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the

form prescribed by the State Government, stating-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c)

r the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(h) whether the report of the medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates

to an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be

prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

3 to 7. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

8. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-

section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 14 sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2)."

Taking into consideration all the above aspects,

it cannot be said that the investigating agency had filed a

.

defective/incomplete police report before the learned Trial

Court. The petitioner, thus, is not entitled for statutory bail.

4. Merits of the bail petition:-

4(i) The prosecution case against the bail petitioner

is that the main accused persons Gaurav Minhas and

others during investigation divulged the details of role

played by Ajay Grover (present petitioner) regarding supply

of raw material for the illegal manufacture of spurious

country made liquor. According to the prosecution, the

investigation carried out by the police reveal that:-

4(i)(a) The petitioner had started a blending and

bottling plant in the name of M/s Yamuna Beverages

Private Limited at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. He ran it

till the year 2011. The petitioner joined this plant again as a

Manager.

4(i)(b) In the year 2019, the petitioner alongwith his

close friend Bhupesh Gupta opened a firm under the name

M/s Organic Liquor. The name of the firm was later on

changed to Handoor Liquor.

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 15 4(i)(c) The petitioner and his friend Bhupesh Gupta

started a firm by the name of M/s Akash Chemicals at

Nalagarh. This was being run by them in a rented premises

in the form of shed/store owned by one Dhani Ram. L-19

.

licence was procured by them from the Excise Department

for storing and selling rectified spirit in M/s Aakash

Chemicals. This spirit is used only for manufacture of

sanitizers. Bhupesh Gupta got too occupied in 'Aakash

Hospital and Diagnosis' at Nalagarh. For that reason, under

an affidavit, he handed over the entire work of M/s Aakash

Chemicals to the petitioner. The petitioner was inducted as

partner and manager in M/s Aakash Chemicals. Bhupesh

Gupta executed a power of attorney on 11.10.2021,

handing over the entire work relating to M/s Akash

Chemicals to the bail petitioner.

4(i)(d) The bail petitioner used to look after the

complete works of M/s Aakash Chemicals with the

assistance of one Santosh Kumar (one of the co-accused

persons in the FIR).

4(i)(e) As per record maintained by the Excise

Department, rectified spirit was purchased by M/s Aakash

Chemicals only till 31.05.2021. These facts have been

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 16

corroborated in the statements of Bhupesh Gupta,

Mahender, Bir Singh and Jamura.

4(i)(f) On 02.08.2021, the bail petitioner called co-

accused Santosh, passed on a mobile number to him,

.

informed that holder of that number was bringing 12000

litres of spirit tanker and directed him (Santosh Kumar) to

get the said spirit unloaded in M/s Akash Chemicals store.

Accordingly, Santosh Kumar unloaded the spirit with the

assistance of Bir Singh, Ashok, Mahender and Jamura.

This spirit was stored in M/s Aakash Chemicals and

subsequently sold in different quantities on different dates

to different accused persons, viz. Gaurav Minhas alias

Goru, Virender alias Gagan, Gurdev and Anil Kumar alias

Manu etc. The spirit was unloaded and loaded with the aid

of labourers Bir Singh, Ashok Kumar, Mahender and

Jamura. The spirit unloaded from the tanker by Santosh

Kumar on the asking of the petitioner and sold to other co-

accused persons was used for illegal manufacture of

spurious liquor. On 04.01.2022, Gurmeet Singh working as

driver of accused Virender, died after directly consuming

this spirit. Virender contacted Santosh Kumar and asked

for getting the spirit checked up. Santosh Kumar got a

bottle of spirit from Virender. It was sent to 'Auriga Lab'

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 17

Nalagarh for checking under the name of M/s Yamuna

Beverages Private Limited. Report in this regard received by

Santosh Kumar on 12.01.2022 was forwarded by him

through whatsapp to the bail petitioner. The bail petitioner

.

confirmed the report to be correct. Subsequently, using this

spirit, the accused Virender alias Gagan illegally

manufactured spurious liquor marked Santra. It was

supplied in Salapar area causing deaths of several persons

and injuries to various others.

4(i)(g) Financial

transactions between

petitioner and co-accused Virender alias Gagan were also r the bail

detected by the investigating agency. Virender has been

accused of illegally manufacturing spurious liquor at Gujjar

Hatti.

4(ii) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner

contended that:-

4(ii)(a) The petitioner had no role to play in the offences

alleged to have been committed in the FIR. He was neither

involved in running of M/s Yamuna Beverages Private Ltd.

at Paonta Sahib nor M/s Akash Chemicals at Nalagarh.

The petitioner was appointed as authorized signatory of

M/s Yamuna Beverages Private Ltd. on 22.02.2020. This

authorization was withdrawn on 08.10.2021. The

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 18

petitioner was not authorized signatory of M/s Aakash

Chemicals. The firm was under the proprietorship of

Bhupesh Gupta. It was Bhupesh Gupta, who had executed

lease deed for renting the premises of Dhani Ram for the

.

firm.

4(ii)(b) The petitioner had no links with accused

Santosh Kumar, in so far as recovery and sale of spirit is

concerned.

4(ii)(c) Rs.50,000/- via two transactions of Rs.25,00/-

his wife.

each were credited in the joint account of the petitioner and

The petitioner was not aware that this amount

was credited by accused Virender alias Gagan. In fact, the

petitioner was in need of Rs.50,000/- to settle his loan

amount under one time settlement scheme with the UCO

Bank Panchkula. He requested Santosh Kumar "who

became friend with the petitioner through Sohan Singh

about two years back". It was Santosh Kumar who had

arranged for Rs.50,000/- to help the petitioner to clear his

loan amount. But the petitioner was not aware that the

money actually came from the account of accused Virender

alias Gagan.

4(ii)(d) The prosecution story otherwise stands on loose

footing. 12000 litres of spirit is said to have been purchased

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 19

by Santosh Kumar for paltry amount of Rs.55,000/-. This

is not believable. The spirit unloaded from the tanker is

said to have been transferred to 170 drums. However, the

same spirit is said to have been sold in 226 drums. There is

.

apparent a mismatch.

4(ii)(e) During investigation, accused Virender alias

Gagan is stated to have disclosed that Santosh Kumar on

09.12.2021 provided him six drums of spirit and said that

he had no spirit left with him. On 29.12.2021, he informed

Santosh Kumar about his talks regarding purchase of 5

drums from one Ladi in Ludhiana, who had liquor vends in

Phillaur Nagar. During investigation, Virender Kumar is

further stated to have informed Santosh Kumar on

04.01.2022 that his driver Gurmit Singh died after

consuming the spirit purchased from Ladi. He requested

Santosh Kumar for testing the spirit contained in 5 drums.

At his insistence, Santosh sent one litre spirit sample

obtained from these drums for testing to 'Auriga Lab.'

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that in any

case, Gurmit Singh's death was caused after consuming the

spirit purchased from Ladi of Ludhiana and not from the

spirit unloaded from the tanker. In nut shell, the case of

the petitioner as projected by learned senior counsel is that

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 20

the petitioner had absolutely no role whatsoever to play in

the commission of offences alleged in the FIR.

Opposing the bail plea, on behalf of the State, it

was pointed out that the petitioner was not a mere illegal

.

supplier of rectified spirit, which was sold for illegal

manufacture of spurious liquor, but was also involved with

other accused persons in illegal manufacture of spurious

liquor. Prosecution has enough evidence indicating

petitioner's deep implication in the FIR. He has criminal

track record. He has committed very serious and heinous

offences against the society at large. Learned Additional

Advocate General also submitted that petitioner will also try

to win over the prosecution witnesses and tamper the

prosecution evidence if released on bail. Prayer was made

for dismissal of the bail petition.

5. Observations

Though the evidence collected by the

investigating agency is not to be discussed in detail while

considering the bail petition, but for the purpose of deciding

the instant bail petition on the specific points raised by

learned senior counsel for the petitioner, reference to some

investigation on prima facie basis has become necessary:-

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 21 (i) The petitioner and accused Santosh Kumar had

exchanged 1286 calls in six months prior to the registration

of FIR. The call detail record has been procured by the

investigating agency. Both were in constant touch with

.

each other. As per investigations, umpteenth number of

whatsapp messages have been found to have been sent

from the mobile phone number of accused Santosh Kumar

to the mobile phone number of petitioner. However, these

messages were not reflected in petitioner's number. It

seems that petitioner has deleted the whatsapp messages,

received from accused Santosh Kumar.

(ii)

Accused Santosh Kumar is stated to have

disclosed that the petitioner called him on 02.08.2021,

passed on a particular cell number to him and informed

that 12000 litres spirit tanker was coming to Baddi and he

should unload that spirit at M/s Aakash Chemicals store

Nalagarh. On the asking of petitioner, Santosh Kumar

unloaded the spirit in 170 drums purchased by him from

scrap dealer Gulshan. The tanker driver was paid

Rs.55000/-. All this was statedly reported by Santosh

Kumar to the petitioner on phone.

(iii) The petitioner had links with M/s Yamuna

Beverages Private Ltd. Paonta Sahib as well as M/s Aakash

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 22

Chemicals Nalagarh. The petitioner was inducted as

authorized signatory for M/s. Yamuna Beverages Private

Ltd. on 20.02.2020. He was authorized signatory of this

company on 02.08.2021 when he had directed Santosh

.

Kumar to unload the spirit from the tanker. His

authorization was revoked only on 12.10.2021. Extra

Neutral Alcohol (ENA) had last reached in M/s Yamuna

Beverages Private Ltd. on 30.06.2021. No further ENA was

requisitioned in this company thereafter. At the time of last

the petitioner was the r to requisitioning of ENA in M/s Yamuna Beverages Private

Ltd., authorised signatory of the

company. In M/s Aakash Chemicals, the petitioner was

inducted as partner/manager by the proprietor Bhupesh

Gupta. By executing a deed of power of attorney on

11.10.2021, Bhupesh Gupta authorized the petitioner to

look after all works relating to M/s Aakash Chemicals.

Prima facie it appears that the petitioner had deep

involvement with the M/s Yamuna Beverages Private Ltd.

Paonta Sahib as well as M/s Aakash Chemicals Nalagarh at

the time of unloading of the spirit in question and its

subsequent sale to persons who are accused of illegal

manufacture of spurious liquor. According to the

investigation carried out by the respondent, M/s Aakash

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 23

Chemicals was authorised by the Excise Department under

L-19 licence dated 28.07.2020 for wholesale and retail sale

of rectified spirit, ENA, Absolute alcohol, Sds, Ethyl Alcohol.

The said licence was valid till 31.05.2021. The firm had

.

surrendered this licence on 25.06.2021. ENA/spirit could

not have been brought to M/s Aakash Chemicals after

25.06.2021, yet, the investigation prima facie shows that

the spirit was stored and sold at M/s Aakash Chemicals.

(iv) The fact that the petitioner had strong links with

M/s Aakash Chemicals is also borne out from the

investigation carried out from Dhani Ram, the owner of the

premises where M/s Akash Chemicals was being run on

lease basis. He is said to have disclosed renting out the

premises to Dr. Bhupesh Gupta at Rs. 15000/- per month.

According to him, the rent for the month of September 2021

was paid by the petitioner as he was partner in the said

firm. On 31.12.2021 also, it was the petitioner who had

transferred Rs. 20,000/- through RTGS in the account of

Dhani Ram towards rent of the premises. He is further

stated to have disclosed that the petitioner used to work in

M/s Aakash Chemicals with Santosh Kumar.

(v) Petitioner's case is that he had no links with one

of the main accused person Virender @ Gagan. Financial

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 24

transactions between the petitioner and the main accused

Virender alias Gagan have also surfaced during

investigation. Virender is one of the persons accused of

having illegally manufactured spurious liquor. The story

.

put forth by the petitioner that the petitioner had requested

Santosh Kumar for loaning him Rs. 50,000/- in order to

clear his (petitioner's) loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in the

UCO Bank and that Santosh Kumar without petitioner's

knowledge had asked the main accused Virender alias

Gagan to credit this amount into petitioner's account, at

this stage, appears to be farfetched in view of the over-all

evidence gathered in the investigation.

(vi) Insofar as petitioner's argument of unbelievable

payment of paltry amount of Rs.55,000/- for the spirit is

concerned, suffice to observe at this stage that it is not the

case of the prosecution that Rs.55,000/- was paid for

12000 litres of spirit, rather as per the statement of co-

accused Santosh Kumar, it was paid to the tanker driver.

Whether it was in lieu of transportation charges or

otherwise, is to be considered during trial.

(vii) It cannot be said at this stage that the deaths

which took place on consumption of spurious liquor were

not related to the spirit got unloaded by co-accused

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 25

Santosh Kumar on the asking of the petitioner and sold

thereafter to persons accused of having illegally

manufactured spurious liquor. All these are the aspects,

which are to be proved during trial by leading cogent

.

evidence. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to link

the petitioner with M/s Yamuna Beverages Private Limited

Paonta Sahib, with M/s Aakash Chemicals Nalagarh, with

the spirit unloaded on 02.08.2021 by accused Santosh

Kumar, with co-accused persons Santosh Kumar and

Virender alias Gagan, with illegal storage of the spirit, with

illegal sale of illegally stored spirit, and with illegal

manufacturing of spurious liquor. Therefore, it cannot be

said at this stage that the petitioner was innocent and has

no role to play in the FIR. The petitioner has criminal track

record. Four FIRs registered against him are still pending

viz:- (i) FIR No. 83 of 2009, dated 28.05.2009, registered at

Police Station New Shimla under Sections 341, 323 & 34 of

the Indian Penal Code ; (ii) FIR No. 440 of 2017, dated

25.12.2017, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District

Mohali, Punjab under Section 61 of the Excise Act & 420 of

Indian Penal Code ; (iii) FIR No. 6 of 2021, dated

16.10.2021, registered at State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Una H.P. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS 26

B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the H.P.

Excise Act and (iv) FIR No. 733 of 2018 registered at Police

Station Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.) under Sections 60 & 63

of U.P. Excise Act are pending trial against him. Possibility

.

of petitioner's winning over prosecution witnesses,

tampering with prosecution evidence and influencing

ongoing investigation, also cannot be ruled out at this

stage.

In view of discussion made in para 3, petitioner

is not entitled for statutory bail and in view of the

investigations carried out by the respondent in the FIR thus

far (para-5), no case for grant of regular bail to him is made

out at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed

alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 22nd July, 2022

R.Atal

::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2022 20:04:25 :::CIS