Arun Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47777-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.10.2022 ARUN KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. JS Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.122 dated 09.07.2022, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar Commissionerate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Bouncer by profession; that the petitioner has no concern with coaccused, namely, Mandeep @ Mani Kanna, from whom the alleged recovery of 80 grams heroin, 255 grams intoxicant powder, 10 pouches along with Rs.6040 drug money was effected and that the mobile number being used by the petitioner for the last five years is mentioned in the memo of parties and he has never contacted Mandeep @ Mani Kanna through said phone, at any stage.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Sr. AMAN JAIN 2022.10.21 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-47777-2022 (O&M) -2DAG, Punjab, accepts notice and submits that co-accused, namely, Mandeep @ Mani Kanna, has specifically named the petitioner as the one from whom he had brought the contraband. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, one more case under the NDPS Act, is registered and pending against him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. Co-accused has specifically named the petitioner in his disclosure statement. Moreover, there is one more case of similar nature registered and pending against the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender having brazen criminal antecedents, he does not deserve concession of the anticipatory bail. Moreover, the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner is sufficient enough to infer that if released on bail, he would again involve himself in similar crime.

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

Dismissed.

17.10.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.10.21 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment