Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balkar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CRM-M-28983-2020
Date of decision: 07.04.2021
Balkar Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Present : Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J (ORAL)
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’)
for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.119 dated 23.08.2020
registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police
Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala.
As per the prosecution version on 23.08.2020, the police
party headed by ASI Jasbir Singh conducted raid on the dera of the
petitioner on the basis of secret information leading to registration of
the above said FIR against the petitioner and recovery of 150 litres of
lahan was made from the said dera but the petitioner managed to escape
therefrom.
While issuing notice of motion on 22.09.2020, this Court
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:45:12 :::
CRM-M-28983-2020 -2-
had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner with direction to
join the investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as
under:-
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case on the
basis of secret information received. The petitioner was
not arrested on the spot and no recovery was made from
him. The alleged recovery of six bottles of illicit liquor and
150 ltrs of lahan has been planted on him. The petitioner
is ready to join the investigation and his custodial
interrogation is not required as the recovery has already
been made.
Notice of motion.
Pursuant to supply of advance copy of the petition,
Mr. Sidakmeet Sandhu, Asstt. AG, Punjab has appeared
and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
Learned State Counsel seeks time to file reply.
Adjourned to 29.10.2020.
Reply with requisite details and relevant documents
be filed on that date. Investigating Officer of the case is
also directed to remain present on that date before this
Court through video conferencing.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join
the investigation as and when called upon to do so. In the
event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on
interim bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer
on furnishing of bail bonds by him to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner shall
comply with the conditions enumerated under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C. failing which he shall not be entitled
to the protection of interim bail allowed to him.
However, in view of Section 438(2)(iv) read with
Section 437(3)(b) of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner is granted
interim anticipatory bail subject to the condition that he
shall not commit any similar offence under the Punjab
Excise Act, 1914 and in case of commission of similar
offence by him in future his bail in the present case shall
also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed in
this regard.”
The petition has been opposed by the learned State
Counsel in terms affidavit of Ajay Gandhi, IPS, Assistant
Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Bholath, District Kapurthala
filed in the Registry of this Court which is taken on record.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:45:12 :::
CRM-M-28983-2020 -3-
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
State Counsel and have gone through the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, while reiterating
submissions made earlier, submitted that in compliance with order
dated 22.09.2020, the petitioner has joined the investigation.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently
opposed the petition and submitted that in view of gravity of
accusation, the petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail and
the petition may be dismissed.
However, learned State Counsel has, on instructions from
ASI Jasbir Singh, acknowledged that in compliance with order dated
22.09.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the
investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required for
effecting any recovery.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of accusation against the petitioner, the fact that custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is not required in the case and there is no material to
justify the apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or
tampering with evidence or criminally intimidating the prosecution
witnesses, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the grant of
anticipatory bail.
Therefore, the petition is allowed and order dated
22.09.2020 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
However, the petitioner shall join the investigation again if and as and
when called upon to do so and shall comply with the conditions
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:45:12 :::
CRM-M-28983-2020 -4-
enumerated under Section 438(2) (i) to (iii) of the Cr.P.C. In view of
Section 438(2)(iv) read with Section 437(3)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall also be subject to the
condition that he shall not commit any similar offence under the Punjab
Excise Act, 1914 after his release on anticipatory bail. In case of non-
compliance of the above-said conditions, the petitioner shall not be
entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail allowed to him.
07.04.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 09:45:12 :::
Comments