High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26348/2018dismissed

Salwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-08-28Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih2 pages

CRM-M-26348-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-26348 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 28, 2018 Salwinder Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Ramandeep S. Sandhu, Sr. DAG Punjab.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.81 dated 02.06.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is on bail in case bearing FIR No.24 dated 12.05.2018 registered at Police Station Sanour, District Patiala and FIR No.102 dated 01.06.2018 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala. Present case has been registered against the petitioner due to party faction.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Daljeet Singh SACHIN MEHTA 2018.08.28 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-26348-2018 -2submits that petitioner indulge in the trade of selling liquor illegally. Besides above two cases, petitioner is also involved in cases bearing FIR No.103 dated 16.05.2018 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala and FIR No.97 dated 27.07.2018 registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala and even in this case, he was identified at the spot and recovery of 50 cartons of countrymade liquor 'Rasila Santra' (600 bottles) was effected from his car.

From the facts discussed above, it appears that petitioner is involved in the trade of selling liquor in an illegal manner. Keeping in view the number of cases pending against him and that he was identified at the spot, I am of the considered opinion that his custodial interrogation is required in this case, as such, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power of this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This petition has no merits. Dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) August 28, 2018 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2018.08.28 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh