Himanshu Jain v. State Of Punjab
!
"#
$%
%$ !&'
(%)
$
"* + , '
(-
"#
"
#$%&'
($$ %& ./ 01 '
% !
('
1
& %
, ! 2,&'
"#'
$ %
% ! 1 20!!'
& $ #,
#)% ./ $ % % #,4 "Copy of Rukka: S.Н.О., Police Station Balongi, Jai Hind. Today, I SI along with ASI Rajinder Singh No. 704/SAS Nagar, HC Bikram 1909 along with government Vehicle bearing No. PB 65 AH 3661, of which driver is CT Amritpal Singh 2143 along with laptop, printer and with investigation kit was busy to conduct investigation by making search operation on suspense of bad persons at Balongi/in the area of Mohall. Then at about 01:30 a.m. I SI when reached at Balongi Barrier near the bridge, the an informant has given information to me SI separately that Akashdeep Singh @ Deepu son of Karnail
Singh, resident of village Chakla, Police Station Sadar Morinda, District Rupnagar who does the business of supplying intoxicated material. Who is living in a rented accommodation/room at Balongi, near water tank, in the P.G. of Kanta Devi at Top Floor. If at this time the police party conduct raid at that place then you may get 'Heroine etc' in a large quantity. The information is believable, which fulfils the recommendation vide under Section 21 61 85 of NDPS ACT. Thus, by writing the Rukka for lodging the FIR under Section 21 61 85 of NDPS ACT against the above mentioned Akashdeep Singh @ Deepu is being sent to the Police Station through Constable Amritpal Singh 2143. By lodging the FIR, the no. should be intimated. Special reports should be issued, Senior officers should be intimated in this regard.
I SI along with co employees is going busy to conduct the investigation in the P.G. of Kanta Devi. Boundary of: Balongi Barrier, Time : 02:00 a.m., Sd/ Harbhej Singh, SI, CIA Staff, District SAS Nagar, dated 19.04.2024. On receiving the case, an FIR has been registered against the above mentioned accused for committing aforesaid offence. In charge Control room, District SAS Nagar has been informed telephonically. The Investigation got conducted. The copies of the FIR's by preparing the special reports is being sent to the nearest Illaqa Magistrate through PHG Narinder Kumar and to the Senior Officers. The case file along with original Rukka is being sent to the nearer SI Harbhej Singh at Kharar through constable Arinda. The MHC Police Station has been instructed for completion of records."
5 % , inter alia # # ,,* $,%
# % # %, (6%$ !&
$
, % 5 % , $,% , "
%& $%
!5
8 ,9 0
: ,%
!" %%% ; !5
8 ,9 0 <<: ,% #!
%%% ;
'
$% &'$% &
() ** + ,( , ($$, 0 ;
,% ++&&
- .
&%%% 1 !5
8 ,9 0 1;1 ,% / &
0 1 2 1 %%%
1
'
, % ! , ),* $$% # % #* , % , $
5 % ! , 4, $,& ,
$ $
# # ,* ! #
&&% # $$,* # * % % (6%$ $ #
$*
#% , 4 4 %
% ), # % #* , % , $
< =#, $ # '
,%
% "4. The High Court decided to grant pre arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in 3
3+$& & (4(
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused Dinesh
Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in 3
3+$& , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. As a consequence, the Appellant State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law'.
[emphasis supplied] ; 3 5
# !" */6/644(, 6&1&& 7,% %% $ * #, 4 % # % %, % % ( !5
0<1 : 4 $ % & % % % !5
4 %% #* =#, $ )% %
; ;
1 / )4 % % )4 ,,& ,),% &
% ,,&% '
% % $$ $ & $ * #, & 1
%%
#!
'
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No