High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/34969/2023dismissed

Gian Chand v. State Of Haryana

2023-08-18Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

2023:PHHC:107319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34969-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2023 GIAN CHAND ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.268 dated 26.03.2023, registered under Section 18-B of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired army person and a national player; that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case; that, though, the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, yet he was not arrested from the spot; that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and that wrong address of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR. Notice of motion, On the asking of this Court, Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Additional AG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that the driving licence of the petitioner was found in the AMAN JAIN 2023.08.18 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34969-2023 (O&M) -2truck bearing No.RJ-19-GF-7242, from which huge quantity of opium i.e. 18.690 kg was recovered; that the entry pass for the truck was also issued in the name of the petitioner and that as per the CCTV footage, the petitioner was found running from the spot.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner was driving the truck from which the huge recovery of 18.690 kg opium was effected, which is a commercial quantity. On search of the truck, licence of the petitioner was found in it. Even the entry pass for the truck was also issued in the name of the petitioner. Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner appear to be serious and grave. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

18.08.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2023.08.18 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document