Rozy Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36626-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2020 Rozy Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Additional A.G., Punjab. (Presence marked through video conference).

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) This is petitioner's second foray before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.117 dated 10.06.2020 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. 2.

Per allegations in the FIR, 120 loose contraband tablets were recovered from the co-accused i.e. father of the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He was not apprehended at the spot. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement. He further submits that recovery has already been effected from the co-accused. No custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner discloses another NDPS case bearing FIR No.122 dated 12.07.2019 is also registered against the petitioner in which he is on bail.

SONU 2020.11.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail plea. He submits that apart from FIR No.122, ibid, another FIR bearing No.73 dated 05.08.2012, under Section 15 of NDPS Act was also lodged against the petitioner, as is reflected from the order dated 28.07.2020 passed by learned trial Court while dismissing his application for anticipatory bail. 6.

The earlier petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-23872 of 2020. Instead of surrendering before the Investigating Agency, the petitioner has filed the instant petition again seeking the similar relief. There is no change in the circumstances which require indulgence of this Court. No fresh grounds are made out to interfere.

7.

Antecedents of the petitioner and his past conduct do not entitle him grant of concession of anticipatory bail. Being on bail in two other cases, he has yet again been implicated in a fresh case. 8.

The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

NOVEMBER 11, 2020 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SONU 2020.11.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document