High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Preet Partap Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preet Partap Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2008
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                          Criminal Misc.26575-M of 2008

                             DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 12, 2008




PREET PARTAP SINGH & ANR.                           ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB                                     .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail

in case FIR No.278 dated 8.9.2008, under Sections 186, 342, 353, 201, 356,

120-B IPC and Section 22(3) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940,

registered with Police Station, Kharar.

Learned counsel contends that Section 353 IPC and Section 22

(3) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, are the only non bailable offences.

Learned counsel has contended that allegations are that on a complaint,

shop of the petitioner was raided at about 7.00 P.M. Certain drugs were

seen and were to be recovered. However, they were snatched and taken

away. The persons from the surrounding area gathered and manhandled the
Criminal Misc.26575-M of 2008 2

staff of raiding party who allegedly escaped leaving their official

documents/ official seal etc.

Learned counsel has argued that the entire incident is most

improbable, rather impossible, in so much as the bag was recovered on

5.9.2008. This fact however does not find mention in the FIR registered

on 8.9.2008. There is political rivalry between Jaspal Singh (petitioner

No.2) and the present Health Minister on account of which the raid was

conducted.

Learned counsel has also contended that although there are

allegations of giving beatings, however, not a scratch was received by

either member of the raiding party.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions

from SI Anil Kumar, contends that the petitioners have joined

investigation and are not required for further investigation at this juncture.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order dated

16.10.2008 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of

arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds

to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the

following conditions :-

i) the petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation as and when required;

ii) the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
and

iii)the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous
Criminal Misc.26575-M of 2008 3

permission of the Court.

This order shall enure till 10 days after the petitioners receive

a notice of filing of final report u/s 173, Cr.P.C, within which period, the

petitioners would be at liberty to apply for regular bail.

December 12, 2008                                            ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                                 JUDGE