Criminal Misc. No.M-2052 of 2009 v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Mar 2009
- Bench
- SABINA
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
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
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 25 Mar 2009. The bench was SABINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.