Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹8 Lakh Compensation To Man Falsely Accused In NDPS Case, Jailed For 8 Yrs

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In view of above and considering that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and case for withdrawal has also been filed under section 321 of the Cr.P.C. by none other than the N.C.B. which was rejected that is the subject matter in criminal revision before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. N.C.B. Crime No.04/2015 (02-2015/16), corresponding to NDPS Special Case No.17/2015(N), pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-I, Ranchi including the impugned order dated 01.04.2016 are quashed”

“He has remained in jail custody for about eight years for a crime which he has not committed. In view of the above position of law, the petitioner shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.8 lacs(Eight Lacs) as compensation and the same shall be paid to the petitioner through the Additional Director General of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Ranchi within eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order,” Justice Dwivedi added while directing the petitioner to released forthwith and the necessary formalities to be made by the authority concerned without any delay.

The case revolved around the quashing of an FIR linked to an NDPS Special Case registered under sections 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, in the court of AJC-I, Ranchi. The petitioner sought the quashing of the charges against him, his release, and compensation of Rs. Fifty Lakhs.

As per the factual matrix of the case, in October 2015, around evening time, approximately 10 individuals, some of whom were dressed in police uniforms, arrived at the "Patiala Dhaba" in Barachatti, Gaya, where the petitioner worked as a waiter and cleaner. They forcibly restrained the petitioner, placed handcuffs on them, and made them sit in their vehicle. Later, they revealed themselves as NCB officials.

Subsequently, these NCB officials visited Parmanand Vishwakarma, the owner of the land where the Dhaba was located. They forcefully confiscated his vehicle and personal belongings, with the apparent intention of implicating him falsely in a drug-related offense.

These NCB officials then transported both the petitioner and the Dhaba owner, Tajendra Singh, to Ranchi. There, they demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from the petitioner for their release, which the petitioner, belonging to a financially disadvantaged family, was unable to pay. In response, the NCB officials demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from Tajendra Singh, who then contacted his family and arranged the requested sum for the NCB officials. Consequently, Tajendra Singh was not implicated as an accused in the ongoing case.

The counsel representing the petitioner asserted that both the petitioner and an individual named Parmanand Vishwakarma had been unjustly ensnared in a case that had been filed as a NCB crime.

It was contended that the petitioner had been in custody since October 7, 2015, in a case where no evidence had emerged against them. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated based on an erroneous seizure list by the NCB, leading to two unsuccessful attempts by the NCB to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioner and other innocent individuals under section 321 Cr.P.C, as rejected by the trial court.

Additionally, it was emphasized that the NCB in Ranchi had pursued a revision petition challenging the trial court's orders dated April 11, 2022, which sought the quashing of the two aforementioned orders passed by the Special Judge, NDPS. The counsel pointed out that the co-accused, Parmanand Vishwakarma, had sought regular bail in the same case and was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench, further underscoring the perceived falsity of the charges.

Anil Kumar, the ASGI representing the NCB (UOI), acknowledged the erroneous nature of the case, and admitted that both the petitioner and another accused had been wrongly implicated, which had prompted the NCB to file withdrawal petitions that were subsequently rejected, which led to ongoing proceedings and directives to initiate departmental actions against the NCB officials responsible for the wrongful implications, including the filing of an FIR and the granting of sanctions for further action.

In view of the facts and the submissions of the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court opined that the petitioner was falsely accused in the instant case which was found to be false by none other than the agency which has implicated the petitioner.

The Court while citing specific orders from October 22, 2020, and April 11, 2022, where the facts had been thoroughly examined, and the petitions had been dismissed, emphasized, “In aforesaid background, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand and he is languishing in jail since 07.10.2015 and if such a situation is there, considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the liberty of the petitioner has been taken and this fact has been brought before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot be a mute spectator,” the Court added.

It emphasized that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution had been violated when the petitioner's liberty was unjustly taken away by NCB officials.

Drawing from the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, the Court stated that the petitioner, having spent a significant portion of his life in jail due to the actions of NCB officials, was entitled to compensation. The Court also strongly condemned police brutality, custodial violence, and the violation of human rights, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding human dignity and personality. It firmly opposed third-degree interrogation methods and stressed that they should not be tolerated.

Furthermore, in reference to the case of Arnav Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, the Court asserted, “The alarming increase in custodial torture, assault and death in police custody and if there is direct apprehension of such case, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if such facts are brought to the knowledge of the Court, the Court is duty bound to pass appropriate order and even in illegal confinement, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked.”

“It is open to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to recover the said amount from the erring officials if they are found guilty of that,” the Court concluded while allowing the Writ Petition.

Case Title: Manga Singh vs. Union of India

Case no.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 623 of 2023

Click Here To Read Judgement