Gagandeep Singh Mann v. State Of Punjab

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-24725 of 2018 .....

Date of decision:12.9.2018 Gagandeep Singh Mann

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.04 dated 4.8.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 465, 384 and 120-B IPC, Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Sections 7, 13(2) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station STF, Phase-4, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Monika Jalota, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

Cr. Misc. No.M-24725 of 2018 [2] From the record, I find that the present petitioner is named in the FIR and allegation against him is that he was working as a tout with certain Police officials. The allegations against the co-accused Police officials are that they were impersonating themselves as Members of STF, Fazilka and they apprehended one Narinder Singh, who was carrying 300 Grams of Heroin as per the secret informer and they had taken `8 Lakhs from him and the Heroin has been distributed between them including the present petitioner.

As per the prosecution version, 500 Grams of Heroin and `1,30,000/- have been recovered from the present petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the present petitioner has been in custody since 4.8.2017. He is not required for interrogation or investigation purposes as he is in judicial custody. The trial of the case is likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

September 12, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*

Cr. Misc. No.M-24725 of 2018 [3] NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No