High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14829/2021dismissed

Surjeet Singh v. State Of Haryana

2021-08-23Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.202 CRM-M No.14829 of 2021 Date of Decision: 23.08.2021 Surjeet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner herein has sought the relief of anticipatory bail in the criminal case pertaining to the FIR bearing No.66 dated 13.03.2021 registered at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, under Sections 21 (b) and 27-A of the NDPS Act. The questionnaire prepared and put to the petitioner for submitting his reply to the same as well as the disclosure statements stated to have been suffered by the co-accused of the petitioner in the same FIR, i.e. Malkeet Singh and Sukhdev Ram, as forwarded by learned State counsel to this Court through email, are taken on the record. Learned State counsel, on the instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar of Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad, apprises the Court NEETU RANI 2021.08.23 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC

CRM-M No.14829 of 2021 -2- ......

that the petitioner happens to be the real brother of his said co-accused named Malkeet Singh and though he (petitioner) had joined in the investigation in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 30.04.2021 but as is explicit from his replies as recorded by the Police in the said questionnaire, he has not cooperated the Investigating Agency at all and in these circumstances, his custodial interrogation would be required.

Keeping in view the above-discussed submission of learned State counsel and also the gravity of the offence as allegedly committed by the petitioner in this case including the offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 23.08.2021 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No NEETU RANI 2021.08.23 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC