Jagwinder Singh @ Jaswinder Singh @ Jaggi v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-14447 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:3.5.2017 Jagwinder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh alias Jaggi

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Akshay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.8 dated 11.2.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the NDPS Act') at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar Rural.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Jasjeet S. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.05.05 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-14447 of 2017 [2] Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

As per the record, the present FIR has been registered on the basis of a secret information. The present petitioner is named in the FIR. Other co-accused have already been arrested along with the fake currency i.e. 36 notes of `2000/- denomination, 167 notes of `500/- denomination. The present petitioner has been nominated by the co-accused. 200 Grams opium was also recorded from the co-accused. The present petitioner is brother of co-accused Baljit Kaur.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that the present petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

May 3, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.05.05 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh