High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/28288/2020dismissed

Gurdeep Singh @ Kaka Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-09-17Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M- 28288 of 2020 Date of Decision: 17.09. 2020 Gurdeep Singh alias Kaka Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioners pray for grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2019, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bhatinda. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with their brother smuggle liquor from the adjoining State and thereafter sell the same illegally. The FIR was registered when a secret information was received that the petitioners along with their brother, namely Satnam Singh, were bringing the consignment of liquor illegally. Satnam Singh was apprehended with 40 bottles of liquor for which the excise duty had been paid for sale in the State of Haryana only. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document were never apprehended by the police and they have come to know of the

Criminal Misc. No. M- 28288 of 2020 case recently when they were sought to be arrested. He submits that the petitioners have no role to play.

On the other hand, Mr. Pawan Sharda Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has put in appearance on behalf of the State pursuant to an advance copy of the petition, has submitted that Satnam Singh and the petitioners are residing in the same house and they have been evading their arrest for a period of more than one year. He further points out that another FIR No. 134 dated 29.09.2015 was also registered against one of the petitioners on the similar allegations.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge September 17, 2020 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document