← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23970/2015dismissed

Om Parkash @ Oma v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-27Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri2 pages

CRM No.M-23970 of 2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-23970 of 2015 Date of Decision:- 27.08.2015 Om Parkash @ Oma ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arshdeep Singh Kler, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the State.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case bearing FIR No.114 dated 29.05.2015, under Section 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Prosecution case that on 29.05.2015 petitioner was going on motorcyle and on suspicion he was instructed to stop the motorcyle. On seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to run away. ASI made efforts to catch hold of petitioner with the help of supporting team and during that process polythene packet fell on the ground, which found to be containing 117 grams of intoxicant powder. Two samples of 5 grams each, were separated from the same.

NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.30 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-23970 of 2015 -2Learned counsel for the petitioner took the plea that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas no recovery was effected from him. He is ready to join the investigation and actually joined the investigation. So, he be released on anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner fled away from the spot on motorcycle and motorcycle is yet to be recovered. Petitioner has not corporated during the investigation proceedings, as per order of this Court and no case is made out for release of bail and his custodial interrogation is required. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the presence of petitioner is required in this case and no case is made out for pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

August 27, 2015 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) naresh.k JUDGE NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.30 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh