IN T v. State of Haryana

Present: Mr. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate and Ms. M petitioner. petiti cate, te with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, r the Ms. Malini Singh, Advocate for the Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl.A.G., Haryan Mr. aryana. *** *** MANJARI NEH NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is seeking the conce The concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 on 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. IR No.47 dated 18.02.2023 under Sections 420, 467 0, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Se and Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act 1914, register egistered at Police Station Jui Kalan District Bhiwani.

On 14.02.2024, while noticing the fo On e by the following submissions made by the learned State, State, this Court had granted the con o the he concession of interim bail to the petitioner and ask nd asked him to join investigation:-

Learned State counsel, o el, on instructions, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submi bmitted that though the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the liquor, w - or, which was recovered from the co- accused, pursuant to a secret info information received, however, he had been supplying liquor to various ious persons as and when they got in touch with him; thereafter, the liqu liquor supplied by the petitioner would be transported to various parts of t of the country. PUSHPINDER SAINI 2024.06.01 04:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1036-2024 -2- On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel as to whether the petitioner has any criminal antecedents or whether he is involved in any other case of similar nature, she on instructions, has replied in the negative and has submitted that the name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Vishnu and Rajesh.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 14.02.2024, the petitioner had joined investigation and extended full cooperation.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Sandeep Sharma, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency except that he had failed to disclose the name of the person from whom he had picked up the liquor, which in turn, was supplied to the co-accused.