Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.not M-11268 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :
03. 07.2013 Gaurav ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Subhash Godara, Addl.
Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J Petitioner Gaurav has preferred the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.340 dated 18.09.2012 registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 379, 411 IPC and 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
As per prosecution version, on the basis of secret information, raid was conducted and two vehicles loaded with English liquor, having bilties, were found standing in the godown.
When the godown was checked, a huge quantity of boxes of liquor having different marks i.e.Blender's Pride, Party Special, Royal Stag, Green Criminal Misc.not M-11268 of 2013 (O&M) [2].Label, Bagpiper etc.were found.
It is in the FIR that accused Kulbir Sohal, Gaurav Sharma, Chintu Bagga Sardar, Shyam Singh and Mahabir kept total 6655 boxes of English liquor and 2667 boxes of beer by conniving with each other and by forging papeRs.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Co.accused Kulbir Sohal has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2013.
I have gone through the said order passed by this Court.
In the said order, it is written that challan has already been presented and petitioner has joined the investigation.
But in the present case neither the petitioner has joined the investigation not the challan has been presented against him.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail on this ground.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the nature and gravity of the offence and heavy recovery of liquor alongwith forged documents etc., I do not find any ground to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE 03 07.2013 mamta