Anthony Ugochukwu Okpala v. State Of Punjab
!" "#$%$ &
'
'
( )'* ** !"# $ % # % ! & %"'%
** +',- ./ ( ) *+,& &-
./ 011*2
(,1+2121% 2(%23%4(%530" 6 2, 0" *7+/&
8% & 9 %" :
2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is case where the petitioner is a foreign national who has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. He submitted that as per the FIR, the police has apprehended two co-accused namely Lal Singh @ Gagan and Paramjit Singh @ Ajay from whom there had been alleged recovery of 2 kgs. of heroin. Thereafter, during interrogation, the aforesaid two accused disclosed the name of one Sukhjit
Singh @ Sukha and also disclosed that they used to obtain the same from one Nigerian namely Affae @ Cash who is residing in the upper flat of Dabha, Ranjit Vihar, Gali No.3, Dwarka, Sector 23, New Delhi and thereafter a raid was conducted on the aforesaid residence and rather the name of the petitioner is Anthony Ugochukwa Okpala whereas even as per the - ;
<+% <
-=& -< >
- the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case and he has now faced incarceration for more than three years despite the fact that initially no recovery was effected from the petitioner. >
-
- (+(2212( <- (,172122 ;
25# ;- :
may be considered for the grant of regular bail especially on the ground of his long custody. 3.
On the other hand, ! & % "'% has submitted that so far as the custody period of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and the petitioner is in custody for more than three years since 20.03.2020 and it is also correct that initially no recovery was effected from the present petitioner. She also submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case but she has however opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that initially the subject matter of the present FIR pertains to the recovery of 2 kgs. of heroin and there was no recovery from the petitioner at the spot but thereafter on his -
#+21 --
#:
- # #% 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.
The total incarceration of the petitioner is more than three years. As per the prosecution story, the police had apprehended two persons namely Lal Singh @ Gagan and Paramjit Singh @ Ajay and thereafter on their further
-%
# - 0 "- - - -;
<+ =& -
?#% # -
-% #+21 - #:
) ##
> #% - - 4 )
- ;
# ;- ) Hon'ble - & * !"&0"- 123 - &!$. 4' "&!- . 2-" 2 &4"%!$5 !$ & &0 & !6"- 21226(18&&3(
- -
) #*1
-
< @*1
< 6(8-
<< -# )% % #
& # -
# > #% <
- +1,
-
-) - -
- ;
% - -A
#
# 2()-
)#-
A#-
% %#
#
%
## 2(A # #
- # #
% & B
% -
CC 7 /
-Hon'ble -& 602%.$3 72%% $&4"-%2%*! !", ".6$/ &-0,*+D212+%
251+212+%Hon'ble -&
#
- # )#
-
<
! " #
"
"
"
$
%
"
!
&'( )*$
%
+ " $,
" - #
#
"
.
/
"0
1 %!2
" " 34
&'(
5
!6 "
)**!)4)33
"
7 5 &
-
% -
#-
- <
%
0 " - #
- #+21 - #:
9.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
especially the long custody of the petitioner which is more than three years and in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. )
D & D"
! (1 )
learned trial Court in case the same has already not submitted before either the investigating agency or before the learned trial Court.
(( > #% # # ;- -
, **/ 8 +
A ED0 A ED0