High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amit Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 25 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 25 March, 2009
      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                          Criminal Misc. No.M-2052 of 2009
                          Date of decision: 25.3.2009


Amit Kumar

                                                      ......Petitioner

                          Versus



State of Haryana

                                                    .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:   Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for
           Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate,
           for the petitioner.

           Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

           Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   ****


SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by Amit Kumar under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for grant of

anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 33 dated 21.1.2006, under Section

20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station Central, Faridabad.

FIR in question was registered against Narender Kumar,

who was found to be in possession of 170 gms. Charas. During

investigation, it transpired that the said Charas in question had been
Criminal Misc. No.M-2052 of 2009 -2-

procured by the petitioner and had been handed over to accused

Anchil Bhardwaj and Rajender Bhardwaj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner was not named in the FIR and had been falsely involved in

this case. The petitioner has joined investigation in terms of order

dated 27.1.2009.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, on instructions

from ASI Mohd. Ilyas, has submitted that although the petitioner has

joined investigation but his custodial interrogation is necessary as

during investigation, it had transpired that the petitioner had procured

the contraband in question, which was to be falsely planted on the

complainant.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned State

counsel, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out as during

investigation of the case it transpired that the petitioner had supplied

the contraband to his co-accused to falsely implicate the complainant

and his custodial interrogation is necessary.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

March 25, 2009
anita