High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35925/2019dismissed

Angrej Singh @ Sahil v. State Of Punjab

2019-08-30Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta2 pages

CRM-M-35925-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-35925 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2019 Angrej Singh @ Sahil ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.17 dated 07.02.2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914, at Police Station City-1, Abohar. Heard.

Instant FIR was registered against the petitioner on the basis of secret information and a raid was conducted at his house. Total 1090 bottles of countrymade liquor (for sale in Haryana) were recovered from his house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not present at his house at the time of alleged recovery and has been falsely implicated because of political reasons. He is ready to join the investigation.

SACHIN MEHTA 2019.09.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-35925-2019 -2Liquor recovered from the house of petitioner was meant for sale in the State of Haryana. This recovery indicates smuggling of liquor "for sale in Haryana" in the area of Punjab in an illegal manner. The offence has not only the legal but financial implication as well, as smuggling of liquor from nearby State causE loss to State Exchequer. Such type of illegal activities are prevalent in State of Punjab, may be due to State Excise Policy, which prompt many to indulge in this illegal trade of smuggling liquor from Haryana State or Chandigarh for sale in Punjab to earn better profit. Present case call for thorough investigation for which custodial interrogation of petitioner is required. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstance, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power of this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petition has no merits. Dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) August 30, 2019 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2019.09.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh