Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kabir Dass @ Kabir Ahmed vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046019
CRM-M-5404-2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:046019
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5404-2023
Date of Decision:04.04.2024
Kabir Dass @ Kabir Ahmed ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Imran Farroq, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.181 dated
02.07.2022 registered under Sections 18/18-C/61/85 of NDPS Act, at Police
Station Division No.6, Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2. As per case of the prosecution, the alleged recovery of 2 kg and
700 grams opium, which is marginally above commercial quantity, has been
effected from the present petitioner on the basis of the secret information by the
police on 02.07.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been falsely involved in the present case and no independent witness has been
joined. He further contends that no offence has been made out against the
present petitioner and nothing has to be recovered from him. He next contends
that no other case of similar nature is pending against the petitioner. The
petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2022 and the final report under Section 173
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046019
CRM-M-5404-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:046019
Cr.P.C. has already been presented against him. Trial is likely to take long time.
No useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner in
custody. Thus, it is prayed that he may be released on regular bail. In support of
his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments in
(i) CRM-M-37684-2021, Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on
14.02.2022; (ii) CRM-M-8212-2022, Tajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,
decided on 03.03.2022 and (iii) CRM-M-35186-2016, Manjit Kaur @ Jeeto
vs. State of Punjab, decided on 01.12.2016.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However,
he fairly conceded the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other criminal
activity.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, custody
period of the petitioner and also the fact that the quantity of alleged contraband
is marginally above the 'commercial quantity', but without commenting on
merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the
concession of regular bail.
6. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
04.04.2024. JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
