High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41461/2017dismissed

Gurjeet Singh v. State Of Haryana

2017-11-03Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

-1CRM-M-41461 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41461 of 2017 Date of Decision: 03.11.2017 Gurjeet Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 read with Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing the order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure P-1) and for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.64 dated 30.04.2015 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal. According to the prosecution, on secret information, vehicle bearing registration No.HR-29R-6808 was intercepted. However, the driver of the aforesaid car succeeded in running away. On search, 200 gms of poppy husk was found and recovered from the said car. During investigation, petitioner was found to be carrying the aforesaid contraband illegally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot nor was named in the FIR in Ravinder Singh 2017.11.07 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document question. On search of the offending vehicle, a driving license of one Rajinder Kumar and identity card of one Banke was found. The petitioner

-2CRM-M-41461 of 2017 has nothing to do with the alleged recovery. The police falsely wants to implicate the petitioner.

Heard.

Perusal of the file shows that two more cases under the NDPS Act of the years 2006 and 2014, are registered against the petitioner. That apart, petitioner has been booked under Section 174A IPC in the year 2016. The above factual aspect of the case shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

Considering above facts and circumstances, petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) November 03, 2017 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2017.11.07 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document