Punjab-Haryana High Court
Irshad Ahmad @ Zuber vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056928
CRM-M-18755-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:056928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18755-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Irshad Ahmad @ Zuber
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
FIR No. 12 dated 31.01.2021, under Section 15 of NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Division No.7, District Jalandhar.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 31.01.2021 which is almost 3 years
and 3 months and charges in the present case were framed on 08.10.2021
which is almost 2½ years ago and till date only 10 prosecution witnesses
have been examined. He further submitted that petitioner is not involved in
any other case and has got clean antecedents. He submitted that the alleged
role of the petitioner was that he was sitting in the truck and the other
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056928
CRM-M-18755-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:056928
co-accused were shifting some bags of poppy husks from the truck to the
car. He submitted that the other co-accused namely, Danish Manzoor and
Manjit Singh @ Lada who were at parity with the present petitioner have
already been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-
320-2024 and CRM-M-18383-2024 on 23.04.2024 and considering the
aforesaid custody and the fact that the other co-accused have been granted
bail by this Court, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular
bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
has submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the
same is correct and it is also correct that the petitioner is having clean
antecedents and he is not involved in any other case. The parity of the
petitioner with the aforesaid co-accused is not disputed by the learned State
counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration
for 3 years and 3 months. On 23.04.2024, this Court while considering the
bail petition of the aforesaid two co-accused has granted bail particularly on
the ground of delay in the trial and while referring to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. The petitioner is stated to be having
clean antecedents. While considering the bail petition of the aforesaid two
co-accused, this Court also came to the conclusion that the bar contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the light of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India considering the long custody and the stage of the
trial. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the bar contained under
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056928
CRM-M-18755-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:056928
Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present case in the light of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Therefore, considering the totality and circumstances of the
present case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail
bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose
of deciding the present petition only.
26.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
