Nizammudin Moosa Kara vs Narcotic Control Bureau
2022 Latest Caselaw 16942 P&H

                                                                        -1-
CRM-M-46905-2021


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                            CRM-M-46905-2021
                                            Date of decision: 15.12.2022

NIZAMMUDIN MOOSA KARA
                                                              ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

                                                          .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-     Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
              for the respondent.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case

bearing Crime No.14 dated 26.02.2020, registered under Sections 8, 20, 23

(C), 27-A, 28, 29 and 60 NDPS Act, at Narcotics Control Bureau,

Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are

seven accused in the present case; that the complaint was registered at the

behest of Intelligence Officer; that at the time of the alleged recovery, the

petitioner was behind bars in some other case, but now has been released

on bail, as would decipher from the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by

learned Special Judge, under the NDPS Act, Greater Mumbai, and that no

recovery had been effected from the petitioner.

Learned counsel further contends that co-accused, Ved Ram

from whom recovery of drug money was effected, has since been granted

1 of 3

CRM-M-46905-2021

the concession of regular bail, vide order dated 28.09.2022 passed by this

Court in CRM-M-53853-2021; that the petitioner has been in custody since

14.10.2020, and that a number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner

relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special

Leave to Appeal No.4173/2022 titled as Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs State of

West Bengal, decided on 04.08.2022; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.5769/2022 titled as Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs State of West Bengal,

decided on 01.08.2022; the Coordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-M-

30429-2018, titled as Khushal Singh @ Khushali Vs. State of Punjab,

decided on 08.10.2018 and CRM-M-43988-2019 titled as Budhi Prakash vs

Union of India, NCB Chandigarh, decided on 20.01.2020, and this Court in

CRM-M-44759-2019, titled as Singara Singh Vs. State of Haryana,

decided on 17.12.2019.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-NCB,

while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, submits that the petitioner

had been abetting and financing the trafficking of Charas; that the

petitioner had exported Charas to Qatar through Oniba and her husband

Mohd. Shareek Qureshi without their knowledge; that co-accused

Shahnawaj Gulam Choratwala and Shabana Sheikh had received Charas

weighing 1.474 kg. at the instance of the petitioner; that recovery of

contraband effected in the present case, falls under the category of

'commercial quantity', and that two co-accused are still absconding.

However, he does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner.

2 of 3

CRM-M-46905-2021

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Indisputably, the petitioner was in custody in some other case

at the time of recovery of the contraband. No recovery whatsoever had

been effected from the petitioner. So far as another case registered against

the petitioner is concerned, he has been released on bail therein.

The petitioner has been in custody since for the last two years

and two months. Out of 32 prosecution witnesses, six witnesses have been

examined so far. Trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon. As stated

above, co-accused, namely, Ved Ram has since been granted the

concession of regular bail. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served

by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above, without commenting anything on the

merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.

15.12.2022                                     (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar                                        JUDGE

                Whether reasoned/speaking?       Yes/No
                Whether reportable?              Yes/No




                                      3 of 3