Uttarakhand High Court
Suveg Singh Alias Chhaveg vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1658
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 8 of 2025
Suveg Singh Alias Chhaveg --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Subhash Joshi, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Rawal and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi,
learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner has put to challenge the First Information
Report No.200 of 2024 dated 11.06.2024 to the extent of
Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 qua the petitioner, registered with
Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar and
further for a direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to
adopt any coercive method including arrest of the
petitioner, in respect of FIR dated 11.06.2024 lodged by
the respondent No.3.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in the
present case on the basis of the statement of co-accused
while in police custody and there is no evidence on
record which links the petitioner to the alleged offence.
He further contended that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case and the entire
prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is highly
improbable and unbelievable, therefore, the petitioner
deserves some protection by this Court.
2025:UHC:1658
4. Learned State Counsel has filed counter
affidavit. In its counter affidavit, it has been stated that
the involvement of the present petitioner is well
established from the CDR of the mobile phone of co-
accused bearing No.8958178277 and mobile phone
used by present petitioner i.e.7906231120, which
shows that the location of both the mobile phones found
at one place, this fact is evidently clear from the extract
of the case diary regarding the perusal of CDR of both
the mobile phones mentioned above. It has also been
stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had
committed a very serious offence and he is not
cooperating with the investigation and furthermore, he
had a long criminal history, hence, he is not entitled for
any relief.
5. From perusal of the first information report, it
transpires that the allegations made in the first
information report are very serious and discloses
commission of offence. During investigation, his
involvement was also established from the CDR referred
in Para-4 of this judgment and order. Hence, this Court
does not want to interfere in the impugned FIR by
exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present
criminal writ petition is dismissed.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.03.2025
PN
