Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

Crl.Misc. No.M-332 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Misc. No.M-332 of 2015 Date of Decision : 10.3.2015 Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondents ...

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ...

Present :

Mr. A.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. B.S. Rana-I, Advocate for the complainant. ...

1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

2. Whether the judgement should be reported in Digest ? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.130 dated 16.9.2014 under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dehlon, Distt. Ludhiana City.

Notice of motion was issued.

Learned counsel for the State submits that although in compliance of the orders dated 9.1.2015 and 10.2.2015 passed by this court, petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 13.2.2015. He was again called for joining the investigation on 20.2.2015, however, petitioner did not come to join the investigation. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in another FIR of similar nature bearing FIR No.149 of 2013. Learned counsel for the State would next contend that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner and GREESH SAHNI 2015.03.11 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl.Misc. No.M-332 of 2015 his custodial interrogation is required for carrying out the effective investigation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is involved in another FIR of similar nature. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the State was right in contending that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to carry out the effective investigation.

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed.

10.3.2015 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE GREESH SAHNI 2015.03.11 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh