[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Intajar Khan Alias Sanjama vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2025
Status report by way of affidavit of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga, filed in the Court, is
taken on record.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for the last 2 years, 6 months and 3 days. He alleges false
implication. No recovery was made from him. Co-accused, namely,
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.12.09 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
Harmesh Singh @ Meshi, who was arrested at the spot, from whom the
alleged contraband was recovered, has been acquitted, vide judgment
dated 04.05.2018. Charges were framed on 08.08.2024, however, only 8,
out of 22 PWs stand examined so far. He is involved in one more case.
Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court
titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,
2012(2) SCC 382.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner was named in the secret information, however, had run away
from the spot, when the contraband was recovered, though he was the
driver of the canter. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being involved in one more
case and the co-accused having been acquitted.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif
versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on
04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1
year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in
the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender
Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed
with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act.
8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab
CRM-M-57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down
by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner
therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in
Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023,
wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2
out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 6 months
and 3 days; co-accused stands acquitted; charges stand framed on
08.08.2024 but out of 22 PWs, only 8 have been examined; the trial is
likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner
would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be
diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is
allowed.
10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail,
subject to furnishing bail bonds/heavy surety to the satisfaction of trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and
shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial
Court and not change the same till conclusion of
trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change
either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with
prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose
any other condition, as deemed appropriate
while releasing the petitioner.
11. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
12. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and
would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the
trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
