Allowed

Mohd Shehzad v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2024CRM-M/46837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under NDPS Act FIR where contraband (1750 Alprax tablets) was recovered from a jail lab technician who named the petitioner as recipient. No drugs were recovered from the petitioner; trial was slow with only 4 of 19 witnesses examined. Bail granted given prolonged custody and debatable disclosure statement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Mohd Shehzad Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-46837-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 24.09.2024

¶3

Mohammad Shehzad … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶8

Present:Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

FIR NO.	DATE	POLICE STATION	OFFENCES
223	14.10.2020	Division No.7 Ludhiana	22 and 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 52-A, 54 of Prisons Act, 1894

¶12

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶13

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

¶14

As per the case of prosecution, on 14.10.2020 a lab Technician namely Ranjit Singh posted in Central Jail, Ludhiana was apprehended while he was possessing 1750 intoxicant tablets of

¶15

MOHAN SINGH 2024.09.30 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-46837-2024 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

Alprax and a mobile phone while he was present in jail. During the course of interrogation, he disclosed that the aforesaid mobile phone and contraband was to be delivered to jail inmates Babbu Bharti and Mohd. Shehzad (petitioner).

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused Ranjit Singh from whom recovery of 1750 intoxicant tablets was effected. It has been submitted that the allegation being levelled against the petitioner is that aforesaid Ranjit Singh had procured the contraband so as to deliver the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the very fact that the recovery from co-accused has been effected from jail premises shows that it is apparently a false case as it is highly unlikely that the contraband could have been smuggled into the jail. It has further been submitted that in any case, no contraband was ever recovered from the petitioner and it is one Ranjit Singh from whom the same was recovered who subsequently stated that the same was to be delivered to the petitioner.

¶19

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since it is a case of recovery of intoxicant tablets from the co-accused who has named the petitioner to be the person at whose instance the contraband had been smuggled into the jail premises the complicity of the petitioner is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about

¶20

MOHAN SINGH 2024.09.30 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-46837-2024 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

3 years 8 months and 13 days and stands involved in several other cases registered under NDPS Act. It has also been informed that as on date 4 out of cited 19 PWs have been examined.

¶23

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶24

Admittedly, the petitioner was not found in possession of any drugs. It is one Ranjit Singh lab technician who was found in possession of contraband who subsequently made a disclosure statement to the effect that the same had been procured at the instance of the petitioner. The veracity of such like disclosure statement would certainly be debatable. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as only 4 out of cited 19 PWs have been examined till date. Under these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted 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.

¶25

24.09.2024 mohan		( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE
	Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes / No
	Whether Reportable	Yes / No

¶26

MOHAN SINGH 2024.09.30 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Mohd Shehzad v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shehzad v. State of Punjab

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

Parkash Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Simernjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kirandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anmol and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Akash and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.