Ragini Dwivedi @Gini @Rags vs The State Of Karnataka
- SCC(2021) 16 SCC 719
- Neutral2021 INSC 38
- SCR[2021] 1 SCR 264
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which prescribes stringent bail conditions, applies only where a quantity of drugs exceeding the amount specified in that section is seized from the accused; it does not apply where no drugs are recovered from the accused's person or premises, and therefore cannot be used to justify denial of bail merely on the basis of the aggregate quantity seized from multiple accused persons in a wider conspiracy case. Where an accused is charged under multiple sections of the NDPS Act but the evidence on record—consisting only of a statement by an informer and case diary entries—supports at most a conviction for consumption of drugs under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, for which the maximum sentence is one year or six months depending on the substance, other charges including conspiracy charges which the High Court itself found to be tenuous and requiring proof at trial cannot be relied upon to deny bail. Conspiracy charges in a drug case must be proved at trial and cannot be treated as established facts at the bail stage when the entire case rests on an informer's statement and case diary; a charge that is admittedly tenuous should not ground bail denial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
REPORTABLE 2021 INSC 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2021 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 5998 OF 2020]
RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 384 OF 2020
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2021 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6185 OF 2020]
J U D G M E N T
R.F.NARIMAN, J.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 5998 OF 2020
Leave granted.
We have heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) as well
as Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General at
some length. It transpires that the appellant is an
actress whose residence was searched pursuant to a
statement made by one B.K.Ravishankar on 03.09.2020.
The search of the premises of the appellant yielded
the following items:-
“1. One black colour Samsung Note 10 mobile phone.
2. Blue colour Samsung Galaxy Note 9 mobile phone.
2
3. Gold colour Apple mobile phone.
4. Sandisk pendrive – 32 GB
5. Sandisk pendrive – 8 GB
6. A wooden box written on that ‘Organic smoke menthol free tobacco’. Inside that, 6 cigarettes and 3 cigarette strips.”
Thereafter, a complaint was filed by Sh. K.C.
Goutham, Assistant Commissioner of Police, ANW, CCB,
Bengaluru, on 04.09.2020, in which the following
statement was made :-
“In connection with the above subject, I, K.C. Goutham, serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore City would like to request you that, as per the verified information from my known sources, a well-organized network was involved in illegal activities, made financial transactions and gained illegal money by getting drugs from different States that is from Goa, Mumbai, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and even from foreign countries and supplied the same in Five Star Hotels of Bangalore, Pubs, organised Dance party, Music programs, in certain Farm Houses to the Industrialists, Celebrities, a few Actors and Actresses, DJs, Software Employees and others who attend to parties at above places. I have taken up investigation 3
in this regard. During the investigation, information about the said acts has been collected from B.K. Ravishankar. In the said information, the following persons with a secret design have organised parties in different parts of the Bangalore City, consumers were called in and drugs were supplied to them through drug peddlers and the consumers have consumed drugs.
1) Shivaprakash, 2) Ragini Dwivedi, 3) Veeren Khanna, 4) Prashanth Ranka, 5) Vaibhav Jain, 6) Adithya Alva, 7) Lume Pepper @Simon of Decor City of Senegal Country, 8) Prashanth Raju, 9) Ashwin @ Boogi, 10) Abhiswamy, 11) Rahul Tonse,
12) Vinay and others.
The said persons were organising dance and music parties in different parts of the Bangalore City, and supplying and consuming drugs like Ganja, Ecstasy Pills, Cocaine, MDMA, LSD etc. along with drinks. There is information about the supplying of drugs earlier also.
On 16.06.2019 Ravishankar has sent a message through his mobile to the peddler Loom Pepper @ Simon’s mobile No. 6385248582 texting as “Get a very very good stuff” and in another message texting as “2G Celebrity Stuff”. On 12.04.2020 Ravishankar sent message to peddler Loom Pepper @ Simon’s mobile No. 9902031540 texting as “Gave me Less than 1 Gram”, for this the peddler 4
on 13.04.2020 at 06.50 hours (GMT) has texted to the Ravishankar mobile No. 9880404604 as “No O is because it is in a Rock Form That is why is complete 1G”.
Later on 23.06.2020 the following Whatsapp Chat are exchanged between Ravishankar and his friend Prashanth Ranka 1) Dont call to peddlers, 2) Nope not having it from long time, 3) Big time tracking is going on, 4) wht hpnd,
5) ohkkk, 6) Sandeep Patil sir, 7) How come bro, 8) ohkkk, 9) came to know yesterday from sources, 10) thank u very much, 11) Take care. Like these, there are many more Whatsapp messages and code words have been used in these messages.
Therefore, it is requested to take suitable legal action under N.D.P.S. Act against 1) Shivaprakash, 2) Ragini Dwivedi, 3) Veeren Khanna, 4) Prashanth Ranka, 5) Vaibhav Jain, 6) Adithya Alva, 7) Lume Pepper @Simon of Decor City of Senegal Country, 8) Prashanth Raju, 9) Ashwin @ Boogi, 10) Abhiswamy,
11) Rahul Tonse, 12) Vinay and others. I am enclosing along with this a copy of the Statement given by B.K.Ravishankar and copy of the Whatsapp messages.”
Pursuant to this complaint, the appellant has
been arrested and has been in jail from 04.09.2020. 5
On an application made by the appellant for bail,
the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, by an
order dated 28.09.2020, rejected the aforesaid
application, applying the provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act and stating that as a total seizure
‘from all accused’ was 12 gms Cocaine, 55 gms Ganja,
8 ecstasy tablets, 11.5 gms ecstasy tablets and 10
gms MDMA, no bail could be given to the appellant in
the present case.
The High Court, by the impugned Judgment dated
03.11.2020, relying upon the statement made by
B.K.Ravishankar made under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act, the case diary and the parameters laid down in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, also rejected bail.
Having been taken through the entire proceedings
by Sh. Siddharth Luthra, a few things become
apparent:-
i) that pursuant to the search made of the
appellant’s premises, no drugs at all were found;
ii) that the entirety of the case of the appellant is
based upon the statement made by B.K.Ravishankar and
the case diary and at the highest, it could possibly
be said that the appellant consumed certain drugs at
parties; and
iii) What is important to note is that the appellant
has been arrested also on a conspiracy charge, which
the High Court itself found to be tenuous, saying the 6
said charge needs to be proved at the trial. It is
also noted that till date, no chargesheet has been
filed.
Though the appellant has been charged with
offences under Section 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b) and 29
of the NDPS Act, prima facie, if at all any offence
has been made out, it could only be under Section 27,
being the offence of consuming drugs at parties, for
which the maximum sentence for consumption of certain
drugs under Section 27(a) is one year, and under
Section 27(b) is six months.
This being the case, it is clear that Section 37
was wrongly invoked by both the Ld. Additional
Sessions Judge and by the High Court. With Section
37 out of the way, this is a case in which bail must
ensue, as a result of which, we set aside the
Judgment of the High Court and enlarge the appellant
(Ragini Dwivedi @Gini @Rags) on bail, subject to
conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
Any observations made in this Judgment will not
be used to hamper investigation and obviously, will
not be used at the trial.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 6185 OF 2020
Leave granted.
The Judgment rendered above in SLP (Crl.) 5998 of
2020 shall also apply in this case as well. The 7
appellant (Shivaprakash) is granted anticipatory
bail. In the event of his arrest in connection with
Crime No. 588/2018, registered at Police Station
Banasawadi, Bengaluru, he shall be released on bail
to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The
impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside and
the appeal is allowed.
W.P. (Crl.) 384 of 2020
In view of the Judgment passed in the above
cases, this writ petition has become infructuous and
is dismissed as such.
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
.......................J. [ NAVIN SINHA ]
.......................J. [ K.M. JOSEPH ]
New Delhi;
January 21, 2021.
8
ITEM NO.16 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5998/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2020 in CRLP No. 5389/2020 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
RAGINI DWIVEDI @GINI @RAGS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 122349/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) (IA No. 122350/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 384/2020 (X)
(IA No. 125279/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) (IA No. 125280/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(Crl) No. 6185/2020 (II-C)
(IA No. 125586/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) (IA No. 125589/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 21-01-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Adv.
Md. Tahir, Adv.
Md. Akhil, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Lakshy Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv.
Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv.
9
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Rakshit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
SLP (CRL.) NO. 5998 OF 2020
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 6185 OF 2020
Leave granted.
The Judgment rendered above in SLP (Crl.) 5998 of 2020 shall
also apply in this case as well. The appellant (Shivaprakash) is
granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in
connection with Crime No. 588/2018, registered at Police Station
Banasawadi, Bengaluru, he shall be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer. The impugned Judgment of
the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
W.P. (Crl.) 384 of 2020
In view of the Judgment passed in the above cases, this writ
petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 10
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free