The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner, alleged to be a driver involved in a vehicle incident with drugs, argued he was named only after arrest. The Court held the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition.
Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-17494 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 17494 of 2013 Date of Decision: 24.05.2013
Sandeep Bansal
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Sandeep Bansal, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.67 dated 30.03.2013 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda, for an offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 427, 186 and 353 IPC and section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short 'the Act').
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. According to him, he has been named subsequently by his co-accused. He has further
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-17494 of 2013
submitted that it is hard to believe that a person who was driver of the vehicle would succeed in escaping in front of the police. He has further submitted that the quantity of the contraband is also non-commercial.
Unless the police holding naka knows the culprits, they will be unfamiliar with their names. The name of the fleeing accused would be disclosed by his co-accused only. There can be no reason with the co-accused to substitute an innocent person for a culprit. Nothing such as motive can be there on the part of the police also. The people who indulge in illegal activities are more physically fit than the police and they can escape before the police. Whether the quantity of the contraband is commercial quantity or non-commercial quantity it would not help the petitioner in this matter, which is for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In these circumstances, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail.
The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
May 24, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to a named accused in a case involving IPC and NDPS offences.
Whether the argument of post-arrest naming by co-accused justifies granting pre-arrest bail.
Whether the quantity of contraband being non-commercial is a ground for granting pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Bansal
The State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
