Rahul Bansal v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22510-2024 Date of decision: July 24th, 2024 Rahul Bansal .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.36 dated 24.03.2024 under Section 22(C) (Section 29 added later on) of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda. 2.

Vide order dated 06.05.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "As per the allegations, co-accused Antar Singh and Nachattar Singh @ Satri were apprehended on the basis of suspicion, while they were travelling in a car and 2500 tablets of Trekem-100 containing the salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride were recovered. In his disclosure statement, co-accused Nachhatar Singh nominated the petitioner to be the supplier.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-acucsed which is not admissible; that he has never been involved in any such activity nor he has PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.24 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-22510-2024 -2any connection with the co-accused."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 06.05.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the averments made on the last date of hearing that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of similar nature. He, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. Learned State counsel, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 06.05.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

July 24th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.24 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh