Partly allowed

Mujahir Alias Sonu Alias Mjahir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2024CRM-M/17961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three connected NDPS cases involving three accused, the High Court granted bail to two co-accused (Mujahir and Monu Saini) based on the withdrawal of the third petitioner's prayer, lack of evidence recovery, and prolonged custody. Sumit's petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Mujahir @ Sonu and Monu Saini @ Dalip; prayer of Sumit dismissed as withdrawn.

Mujahir Alias Sonu Alias Mjahir Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-17961 of 2024 CRM-M-11217 of 2024 CRM-M-34598 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

********

¶4

Reserved on:26.09.2024 Date of Decision: 27.09.2024

¶5

1.	CRM-M-17961 of 2024
	Mujahir @ Sonu @ Mjahir State of Haryana	Vs.	.....Pe33oner .....Respondent
2.	CRM-M-11217 of 2024
	Monu Saini @ Dalip The State of Haryana	Vs.	.....Pe33oner .....Respondent
3.	CRM-M-34598 of 2024
	Sumit State of Haryana	Vs.	.....Pe33oner .....Respondent

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate for the pe��oner in CRM-M-11217 of 2024. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the pe��oner in CRM-M-34598 of 2024.

¶8

RENU 2024.09.27 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶9

��

¶10

CRM-M-17961 of 2024 CRM-M-11217 of 2024 CRM-M-34598 of 2024

¶11

Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for the pe��oner in CRM-M-17961 of 2024.

¶12

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶15

In the three pe��ons �tled above, all filed under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C., pe��oners pray for their release on regular bail in case FIR No.415 dated 21.08.2023 registered under Sec�ons 22-C and 29 of the Narco�c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Sta�on Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶16

Reply by way of affidavit of Shri Kanwaljeet Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Yamuna Nagar has been filed today in CRM-M-34598 of 2024 �tled “Sumit Vs. State of Haryana”; whereas status reports had already been filed in two other cases.

¶17

3.1 As per prosecu�on allega�ons, based upon secret informa�on, accused Sumit (pe��oner in CRM-M-34598 of 2024) was apprehended on 21.08.2023 and on search, six boxes containing 159 strips with total 1272 capsules were recovered, which on analysis have been found to be Tramadol Hydrochloride with total weight of 725.04 grams. During interroga�on, Sumit nominated Mujahir (pe��oner in CRM-M-17961 of 2024) to be the supplier of the contraband. Said Mujahir was arrested on 19.12.2023 and on interroga�on, he disclosed to have purchased the contraband i.e. recovered narco�c from Monu Saini alias Dalip (pe��oner in CRM-M-11217 of 2024) . Said Monu Saini @ Dalip was arrested on 21.12.2023 on the iden�fica�on of Mujahir.

¶18

��

¶19

RENU 2024.09.27 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-17961 of 2024 CRM-M-11217 of 2024 CRM-M-34598 of 2024

¶21

3.2 During inves�ga�on, the three accused were found to be in contact with each other. The call detail records of the mobiles of the accused Sumit and Mujahir revealed that they had regular conversa�on with each other. Statement of bank account of Monu alias Dalip from 21.02.2023 to 22.08.2023 was also obtained, which revealed money transac�ons between him and Mujahir. The statement of bank accounts of Sumit and Mujahir also revealed money transac�ons between them during the period 01.12.2022 to 21.08.2023.

¶22

It is contended by learned counsels for the pe��oners – Mujahir as well as Monu Saini alias Dalip that both of them have been falsely implicated simply on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused and that of the pe��oners; that no recovery has been effected from them; that they have never indulged in any such criminal case. Learned counsel for the pe��oner – Mujahir also contends that co-accused Sumit runs the tyre puncture shop and in the neighbourhood, pe��oner – Mujahir runs a small Food Court. Drawing aEen�on towards the statement of bank account, learned counsel contends that there were only seven transac�ons between Mujahir and Monu Saini @ Dalip for total amount of ₹10,800/-, which are not connected with the sale of any narco�c. Further, there were 42 transac�ons between Sumit and Mujahir for total amount of ₹12,523/-, which are also not connected in any manner with the sale of narco�c. With these submissions, prayer is made to grant o f bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the pe��oner – Sumit has made a statement so as to withdraw the pe��on at this stage.

¶24

Learned State Counsel has opposed the pe��ons of Mujahir as well as Monu Saini @ Dalip on the ground that both of them were the suppliers of the narco�c substance, as has emerged in the disclosure statement of co-accused – Sumit and that this fact is verified during inves�ga�on from the Bank transac�ons

¶25

��

¶26

RENU 2024.09.27 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-17961 of 2024 CRM-M-11217 of 2024 CRM-M-34598 of 2024

¶28

as well as the call detail records of their mobiles. However, learned state counsel concedes the fact that no recovery of any contraband has been effected any of these pe��oners – Mujahir or Monu Saini alias Dalip.

¶29

I have considered the submissions of both the sides and appraised

¶30

the record.

¶31

AdmiEedly, recovery of contraband was effected from co-accused Sumit. It is also the conceded posi�on that disclosure statement of co-accused – Sumit led the arrest of Mujahir, who nominated Monu alias Dalip and then said Monu was arrested to be the supplier. It is also the conceded posi�on that no recovery of any contraband has been effected either from Mujahir or from Monu Saini alias Dalip. The en�re case of the prosecu�on against these two pe��oners is based upon the disclosure statement of the accused besides the inter-se conversa�on on mobile and the bank transac�ons. At this stage, it is not possible to comment as to what conversa�on used to take place amongst the pe��oners Mujahir and Monu Saini @ Dalip with Sumit. The bank transac�ons are also for small amounts and at this stage, it is not possible to comment that they pertain to sale/ purchase of any contraband.

¶32

Pe��oner – Mujahir alias Sonu is in custody since 19.12.2023; whereas, pe��oner Monu Saini alias Dalip is in custody since 21.12.2023 i.e. both of them are in custody for the last more than nine months. The respec�ve custody cer�ficates of both these pe��oners reveal that they are not involved in any other case pertaining to the NDPS Act.

¶33

Learned State Counsel has also informed that the charges against the three accused were framed on 09.04.2024 and out of 26 witnesses cited by the prosecu�on, only 01 witness has been examined so far and thus, 25 witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus, trial is likely to take long �me to conclude.

¶34

��

¶35

RENU 2024.09.27 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

CRM-M-17961 of 2024 CRM-M-11217 of 2024 CRM-M-34598 of 2024

¶37

Having no�ced all the afore-said facts and circumstances, CRM-M17961 of 2024 and CRM-M-11217of 2024 pertaining to Mujahir alias Sonu and Monu Saini alias Dalip are allowed. Pe��oners – Mujahir alias Sonu and Monu Saini alias Dalip are admiEed to bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the sa�sfac�on of learned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and condi�ons.

¶38

As far as CRM-M-34598 of 2024 , pertaining to Sumit is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

¶39

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

¶40

Septemb	er 27, 2024		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu			JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶41

RENU 2024.09.27 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

��

Mujahir Alias Sonu Alias Mjahir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujahir Alias Sonu Alias Mjahir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharminder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pargat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amit Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Rulia Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Monu Saini @ Dalip Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Usha Chopra and Another Vs Surinder Kumar Trehan