Supreme Court of India
RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 21 January 2021
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
ARAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2021)
B
JANUARY 21, 2021
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA ANDK. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail applicationrejected by Session Judge applying the provisions of s.37 of theCNDPS Act 1985and stating that as a total seizure ‘from all accused’was 12 gms cocaine, 55 gm Ganja, 11.5 gms ecstasy tablets and 10gms MDMA, no bail could be given to the appellant in present case– High Court also rejected bail – On appeal, held: The residence ofthe appellant was searched pursuant to statement made by one ‘BKR’D– Pursuant to search made of the appellant’s premises, no drugs atall were found – The entirety of the case of the appellant was basedupon the statement made by ‘BKR’ and the case diary and at thehighest, it could possibly be said that the appellant consumed certaindrugs at parties – Appellant was arrested also on a conspiracycharge, which the High Court itself found to be tenuous, sayingEthat the said charge has to be proved at the trial – Chargesheet wasnot yet filed – s.37 was wrongly invoked and resultantly bail mustensue – Bail granted – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct, 1985 – s.37.
Disposing of the appeals and writ petition, the CourtF
HELD: Though the appellant was charged with offencesunder Section 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, primafacie, if at all any offence has been made out, it could only beunder Section 27, being the offence of consuming drugs at parties,for which the maximum sentence for consumption of certain drugsGunder Section 27(a) is one year, and under Section 27(b) is sixmonths. This being the case, Section 37 was wrongly invoked byboth the Additional Sessions Judge and by the High Court. [Paras8, 9][268-B-C]
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 62 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2020 OF the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 5389 of 2020.
Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Ms. SakshiSharma, Md. Tahir, Md. Akhil, Ayush Kaushik, Ms. Ankita Tiwari, LakshyMehta, Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh, Madhur Jain, Advs. for theAppellant.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain,Vishal Banshal, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 5998 OF 2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counselappearing for the appellant(s) as well as Mr. Tushar Mehta, learnedSolicitor General at some length. It transpires that the appellant is anactress whose residence was searched pursuant to a statement madeby one B.K.Ravishankar on 03.09.2020. The search of the premises ofthe appellant yielded the following items:- “1.One black colour Samsung Note 10 mobile phone.
2. Blue colour Samsung Galaxy Note 9 mobile phone.
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 mentholfree tobacco’. Inside that, 6 cigarettes and 3 cigarettestrips.”
3. 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 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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, madefinancial transactions and gained illegal money by gettingdrugs from different States that is from Goa, Mumbai, Punjab,Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and even from foreign countries andsupplied the same in Five Star Hotels of Bangalore, Pubs,organised Dance party, Music programs, in certain FarmHouses to the Industrialists, Celebrities, a few Actors andActresses, DJs, Software Employees and others who attend toparties at above places. I have taken up investigation in thisregard. During the investigation, information about the saidacts has been collected from B.K. Ravishankar. In the saidinformation, the following persons with a secret design haveorganised parties in different parts of the Bangalore City,consumers were called in and drugs were supplied to themthrough drug peddlers and the consumers have consumeddrugs.
A
B
C
D
1) Shivaprakash, 2) Ragini Dwivedi, 3) Veeren Khanna, 4)Prashanth Ranka, 5) Vaibhav Jain, 6) Adithya Alva, 7) LumePepper @Simon of Decor City of Senegal Country, 8)Prashanth Raju, 9) Ashwin @ Boogi, 10) Abhiswamy, 11)Rahul Tonse, 12) Vinay and others.
E
The said persons were organising dance and music parties indifferent parts of the Bangalore City, and supplying andconsuming drugs like Ganja, Ecstasy Pills, Cocaine, MDMA,LSD etc. along with drinks. There is information about theFsupplying of drugs earlier also.
On 16.06.2019 Ravishankar has sent a message through hismobile to the peddler Loom Pepper @ Simon’s mobile No.[REDACTED] texting as “Get a very very good stuff” and inanother message texting as “2G Celebrity Stuff”.
G
On 12.04.2020 Ravishankar sent message to peddler LoomPepper @ Simon’s mobile No. [REDACTED] texting as “Gaveme Less than 1 Gram”, for this the peddler on 13.04.2020 at06.50 hours (GMT) has texted to the Ravishankar mobile No.[REDACTED] as “No O is because it is in a Rock Form That iswhy is complete 1G”.
H
RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS v. THE STATE OFKARNATAKA [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
Later on 23.06.2020 the following Whatsapp Chat areexchanged between Ravishankar and his friend PrashanthRanka 1) Dont call to peddlers, 2) Nope not having it fromlong 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 Whatsappmessages and code words have been used in these messages.
Therefore, it is requested to take suitable legal action underN.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 ofSenegal Country, 8) Prashanth Raju, 9) Ashwin @ Boogi,10) Abhiswamy, 11) Rahul Tonse, 12) Vinay and others. I amenclosing along with this a copy of the Statement given byB.K.Ravishankar and copy of the Whatsapp messages.”
4. Pursuant to this complaint, the appellant has been arrested andhas been in jail from 04.09.2020.
5. On an application made by the appellant for bail, the AdditionalCity Civil and Sessions Judge, by an order dated 28.09.2020, rejectedthe aforesaid application, applying the provisions of Section 37 of theNDPS Act and stating that as a total seizure ‘from all accused’ was 12gms Cocaine, 55 gms Ganja, 8 ecstasy tablets, 11.5 gms ecstasy tabletsand 10 gms MDMA, no bail could be given to the appellant in the presentcase.
6. The High Court, by the impugned Judgment dated 03.11.2020,relying upon the statement made by B.K.Ravishankar made underSection 67 of the NDPS Act, the case diary and the parameters laiddown in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, also rejected bail.
7. 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, nodrugs at all were found;
ii) that the entirety of the case of the appellant is based upon thestatement made by B.K.Ravishankar and the case diary and at thehighest, it could possibly be said that the appellant consumed certaindrugs at parties; and ABC
D
E
F
G
H
Aiii) What is important to note is that the appellant has been arrestedalso on a conspiracy charge, which the High Court itself found to betenuous, saying the said charge needs to be proved at the trial. It is alsonoted that till date, no chargesheet has been filed.
8. Though the appellant has been charged with offences underBSection 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, prima facie, if atall any offence has been made out, it could only be under Section 27,being the offence of consuming drugs at parties, for which the maximumsentence for consumption of certain drugs under Section 27(a) is oneyear, and under Section 27(b) is six months.
C9. This being the case, it is clear that Section 37 was wronglyinvoked 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 andenlarge the appellant (Ragini Dwivedi @Gini @Rags) on bail, subject toconditions to be imposed by the trial court.D
10. Any observations made in this Judgment will not be used tohamper investigation and obviously, will not be used at the trial.
11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 6185 OF 2020E
12. Leave granted.
13. The Judgment rendered above in SLP (Crl.) 5998 of 2020shall also apply in this case as well. The appellant (Shivaprakash) isgranted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in connection withCrime No. 588/2018, registered at Police Station Banasawadi, Bengaluru,Fhe 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 isallowed.
W.P. (Crl.) 384 of 2020
G14. In view of the Judgment passed in the above cases, this writpetition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
Devika Gujral
Matters and appeals disposed of.
H