Dismissed

Pavitar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2012CRM-M/22097/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS and IPC case. The bench held that the allegations were direct and specific, involving the petitioner's vehicle and forged number plates, making custodial interrogation necessary. Thus, no case for bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail petition dismissed; Crl. Misc. application disposed of.

Pavitar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-22097 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-22097 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:26.7.2012

Pavitar Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

¶13

CRM No.42637 of 2012

¶14

Application is allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶15

Crl. Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶16

CRM No.M-22097 of 2012

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR No.121 dated 21.6.2012 under Sections 18, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 420, 465, 468, 470, 471, 411 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation but his custodial interrogation is not required in the present case. Thus, he

¶19

CRM No.M-22097 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

submits that the instant petition deserves to be accepted.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

¶23

Firstly, the allegation against the petitioner is direct and specific. The Innova car from which the contraband was recovered belongs to the present petitioner, as per allegation in the FIR. Secondly, the Innova car allegedly owned by the petitioner was used by him and his co-accused Rajnish Kumar for selling opium and poppy husk. Thirdly, it has also been found during investigation that a forged number plate was affixed by the petitioner on the Innova car.

¶24

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required for carrying out the effective investigation.

¶25

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons afore-mentioned, the present petition is without any merit. No case for interference under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been made out.

¶26

Resultantly, the present petition is ordered to be

¶27

dismissed.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

26.7.2012 mks

Pavitar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Kumar Vs Govt. of Hry. and Ors.

Jaitpura Coop. Transport Soceity & Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Major Singh @ Mithu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajbala & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surinder Pal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shalinder Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Others