High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16799/2018allowed

Sarabjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-07-17Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-16799 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 17, 2018 Sarabjit Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.280 dated 18.12.2017 under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 411, 414 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Tarn Taran. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that as per FIR, when police party was going from Jhabal Chowk to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, then, DSP Satnam Singh instructed the police party to raid the house of Punjab Singh, as in the Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh bank robbery which occurred on 12.12.2017 in Axis Bank, Naurangabad,

CRM No.M-16799 of 2018 -2the looted amount can be recovered from the house of Punjab Singh. As per the allegations, Ranbir Kaur was present in the house. A .32 bore pistol along with magazine and `1.55 lakhs were found and 300 grams of heroin has been recovered from personal search of Ranbir Kaur. Present petitioner Sarabjit Singh is husband of Ranbir Kaur. He was not present in the house. The house of Punjab Singh is jointly possessed by all these persons.

The petitioner has already joined the investigation. No specific role has been attributed to him. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 31.05.2018 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 17, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh