Punjab-Haryana High Court
Javed Ahmed Sheikh vs State Of Punjab on 14 December, 2023
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160581
CRM-M-27931-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:160581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(220)
CRM-M-27931-2023
Date of decision:- 14.12.2023
Javed Ahmed Sheikh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.P.S.Tung, DAG, Punjab for State-respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the third petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of post-arrest bail in:-
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
144 12.10.2019 Maqsudan, District Jalandhar 15 and 22 of the NDPS
Rural Act
2. Case of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, was registered
as information was received that a truck loaded with poppy husk and drug
capsules is being driven from Delhi to Jammu. A barricade was set up,
truck bearing No. JK-05-D-4481 was intercepted, recovery of 8 kg poppy
husk from cabin behind driver seat and two plastic bags with a total of 350
bottles of Codeine Phosphate Tnprolioine Hydrochloride Syrup Maxcoff-T
100 ml each was effected. Truck was being driven by Javed Ahmed Sheikh,
present petitioner, and on his personal search, he was found to be carrying
1200 capsules of SPM-PRX-WOCKHARDT in a plastic bag wrapped
around his leg. The other occupant of the truck was Nasir Ahmad Sheikh
and on his personal search, 800 capsules of SPM-PRX-WOCKHARDT was
made from his person.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160581
CRM-M-27931-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:160581
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated and no recovery as alleged was effected from him.
He submits that there was a violation of mandatory provision of the NDPS
Act at the time of search and seizure inasmuch as neither the secret
information was reduced into writing nor any independent witness was
associated at the time of alleged search. Counsel submits that the petitioner,
who is in custody since 15.10.2019, deserves to be enlarged on bail as the
trial has not concluded. He has also placed reliance upon judgment dated
23.03.2023, Annexure P-2, whereby co-accused, Nasir Ahmad Sheikh, has
been enlarged on regular bail.
4. Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions from ASI, Satnam
Singh and on the basis of affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jalandhar (Rural) has opposed the petition by submitting that as the
recovery effected falls within the ambit of commercial quantity, bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. He submits that the petitioner
does not enjoy a clean past and has been convicted in another criminal case
for offence under the NDPS Act. He submits that the prosecution evidence
is at an advanced stage and the delay cannot be attributed to the State.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
6. As per instructions received by the State counsel from ASI,
Satnam Singh, out of twelve prosecution witnesses, seven have been
examined and examination-in-chief of four more have been recorded, but
they have not been cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner, who
has been repeatedly requesting for deferment. Still further, by referring to
the affidavit, he submits that the truck carrying the contraband belongs to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160581
CRM-M-27931-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:160581
Abdul Raseed Sheikh, petitioner's father and it has been released to him on
sapurdari. Despite being summoned thirteen times, the truck has not been
produced by him and by order dated 10.03.2023, the Trial Court has
forfeited the sapurdari bond and ordered the SHO to seize the truck and
produce it before the Court.
7. The capsules recovered from the petitioner have been found to
contain 729.6 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which falls within the
scope of commercial quantity and the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
will come into play. Furthermore, petitioner does not enjoy a clean past and
stands convicted in another criminal case lodged against him under the
NDPS Act. The case of the petitioner is not at par with that of co-accused,
who was released on bail vide order, Annexure P-2, not only considering
the long detention, but also after noticing that he had clean antecedents.
8. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, nature of
allegations, gravity of offence, antecedents of the petitioner, the advanced
stage of the prosecution evidence and the delaying tactics of the defence,
this Court is of the opinion that the concession of bail cannot be extended to
the petitioner.
9. There is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
14.12.2023 JUDGE
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160581
3 of 3
