Daljit Singh @ Daljeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-10246-2026 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10246-2026(O&M) Decided on: 29.05.2026 DALJIT SINGH @ DALJEET SINGH ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Aarish Kamboj, Advocate for Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 29.01.2026, under Sections 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station Khuhi Khera, District Fazilka.

2.

Allegations against the petitioner are that on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted at the residence of the petitioner and on seeing the police party, the petitioner succeeded in fleeing from the spot and 300 litres of 'lahan' and 50 litres of illicit liquor were recovered. Hence the present FIR was registered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot when raid was conducted at his residence.; the petitioner is having clean and clear

CRM-M-10246-2026 (O&M) -2antecedents and, as such, prayed for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to him.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of respondentState and opposed the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner is involved in distilling and selling of illegal liquor and 300 litres of 'lahan' along with 50 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered at his residence, however, the petitioner fled away from the spot at the time when raid was conducted at his residence, as such, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation and to crack the nexus involved in the trading of illegal liquor. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.

Heard.

7.

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner is allegedly involved in distilling and selling of illegal liquor and 300 litres of 'lahan' along with 50 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from his residence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for proper investigation of the case and to unearth the nexus behind dealing with illegal liquor.

CRM-M-10246-2026 (O&M) -38.

In State Represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, 1997(7) SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation by holding that many useful information and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 9.

In view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. 10.

Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO