Balwinder Singh@Binni v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-54464-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54464-2022
Reserved on: 22.11.2022
Pronounced on: 24.11.2022 Balwinder Singh @ Binni
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 28.10.2022 Jathlana, Distt.
61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Yamuna Nagar Act, 1914 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.
In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he is involved in 19 other cases.
3.
As per instructions given by the state , the petitioner has nineteen more criminal cases, whose details are as follows:
Sr. No.
FIR No. Date Offences Police Station 22.11.1995 382 IPC Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 22.06.1197 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 17.12.1997 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 16.07.1999 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 09.04.2001 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 09.05.2001 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 31.07.2021 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 07.03.2003 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 15.05.2004 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar SONIA ARORA 2022.11.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-54464-2022 16.10.2004 379 IPC Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 23.04.2005 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 20.12.2012 61/1/14 of Excise Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 03.03.2017 13C2-2GS Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 06.04.2018 15-61-85 of NDPS Act Jathlana, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 16.12.2016 13(1)-3 of Gausamvardhan Act Babain 19.06.2020 15-61-85 of NDPS Act Sadar Yamuna Nagar 4.
Petitioner's counsel argued that FIR was registered based on the secret information.
5.
State's counsel opposes the bail and contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:
6.
The allegations are transporting alcohol, which is the State's privilege, without paying the revenue and in violation of the State's Excise Policy. 7.
Undoubtedly the FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information, and the raw material was recovered from petitioner's home. Furthermore the petitioner has huge criminal history which prima facie shows that illicit trade in liquor is his main source of business .
Given above, and the unfair conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms.All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.11.2022 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
NO.
SONIA ARORA 2022.11.24 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document