← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/64379/2018dismissed

Parveen v. State Of Haryana

2019-01-09Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-64379 of 2018 Date of decision:9.1.2019 Parveen

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the petitioner.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.211 dated 8.12.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Rajaund, District Kaithal.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

A perusal of the FIR shows that it has been registered on the basis of a secret information that Sattu Jatt Sikh was owning a vacant house and fields near Village Mandwal, which were sold by him to some Delhi party about six/seven years ago and those persons now leased out the said house and fields for cultivation to some other persons. Parveen has taken HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.01.10 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-64379 of 2018 [2] liquor vend at Village Bastali, District Karnal. He along with his other companions, used to make and sell spurious liquor in the said vacant house in the fields of Sattu. It is in the FIR that they are also using some poisonous chemical to prepare said spurious liquor. Then a raid was conducted and empty cardboard boxes of Marka Royal Stag, Blenders Pride, McDowell etc., empty bottles of various companies, caps sticker label, holograms of liquor bottles were also recovered. The present petitioner, as per the FIR, is the main accused. He is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

January 9, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.01.10 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh