Peer Mohammad Maqbul v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 03.07.2023 Peer Mohammad Maqbul ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.09, dated 19.01.2021, under Sections 21(C) and 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala. 2.

It is the case of prosecution that on 19.1.2021 a secret information was received by the police regarding presence of a six tyre truck, on the front side of which "Islam Zindabad" was written and in which three Kashmiri persons who supply Heroin and intoxicant substance, were sitting and looking for customers. It is further the case of prosecution that upon receipt of aforesaid information a truck bearing number JK-05-D-5194, coming from the side of Grain Market Talwandi Chaudhrian was intercepted and three persons namely Salman Sheikh, Shabaaz Shah and Peer Mohammad Maqbool

- 2 - (petitioner) were apprehended. While the petitioner was found in possession of 1.6 kgs of Heroin, another 900 grams and 1 kg of Heroin was recovered from co-accused Salman Sheikh and Shahbaj Shah.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that since the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 2 years and 5 months, he deserves to be released on bail. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner along with co-accused was found in conscious possession of 'commercial quantity' of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out. However, learned State counsel informed that the petitioner is not wanted in any other case. It has been further informed that the petitioner, as on date, has been behind bars since the last about 2 years and 5 months. Learned State counsel has further informed that, in the present case, 2 out of cited 14 PWs have been examined.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions.

6.

Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, it is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail solely on ground of long custody: Case Number Date of Decision Title of Case Period which the accused had undergone when granted bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Criminal Appeal No.

07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs.

1 year and 7 months

- 3 - 245/2020 the State of West Bengal Criminal Appeal No.

668/2020 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh 2 years and 7 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

5769/2022 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs.

the State of West Bengal 1 year and 7 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

of 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs.

the State of West Bengal 1 year and 6 months Criminal Appeal No.

of 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India 2 years 1 month and 17 days Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

5530-2022 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. the State of Gujarat About 2 years Criminal Appeal No.

2027-2022 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The State of Odisha 1 Year and 8 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

8653-2022 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The State of West Bengal 10 months 7.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment dated 25.01.2023 arising out of SLP No.6690-2022 titled Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has granted bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act where the accused alongwith co-accused was found in possession of 'commercial' quantity of Ganja and had been behind bars since the last two and a half years while observing that in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial.

- 4 - 8.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the clean antecedents and long custody of the petitioner i.e more than 2 years and 5 months and the fact that only 2 out of cited 14 PWs have been examined so far, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted.

9.

The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10.

It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 03.07.2023 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No