Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 210) CRM-M-26394 of 2020 Date of Decision: 21.01.2021 Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by video conferencing.

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail, upon FIR no.87, dated 20.08.2020, having been registered at Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

On November 02, 2020, the following order had been passed: "
 

    

 

 


!  "   "   #   $   %  &  #             "&  '
 ( " %            )*   +++ 
&&   & ,&&

" & &"

       "    ""        -  )&-   . )& "  " &"" VIKAS CHANDER 2021.01.23 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

210) CRM-M-26394 of 2020 -2-  /    * " 

   &  $    "  &    

 ""  &   
& 01 ((2 Today, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner in this petition has joined investigation and presently at least his custodial interrogation is not required.

That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, whatsoever, since the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this petition has in fact been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, he would be given 7 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon him. 21.01.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No   VIKAS CHANDER 2021.01.23 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document