Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-44558 of 2017 (O&M) Gurdeep Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-46487 of 2017 (O&M) Mangat Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of Decision: July 10, 2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-44558 of 2017). Mr.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-46487 of 2017). Mr.Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.117 dated 02.10.2017 under Sections 420, 473 IPC and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, registered Vineet Gulati 2018.07.12 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-44558 of 2017 and connected petition -2at Police Station Sadar, Mansa.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case, has been registered on the basis of secret information against the present petitioners and other persons. The petitioners were not apprehended on the spot nor at the time of raid, any recovery was effected. The petitioners are stated to have fled away from the spot along with Innova car. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 24.11.2017 passed in CRM No.M-44558 of 2017 and order dated 07.12.2017 passed in CRM No.M-46487 of 2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 10, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.12 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh