Allowed

Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2023CRM-M/60350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a probationary pharmacy officer accused of drug supply and corruption in a jail. The court noted lack of corroborative evidence regarding financial transactions while making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and interim order dated 24.11.2023 made absolute; pending applications disposed of.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-60350-2023

¶2

2023:PHHC: 156346

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-60350-2023 (O&M) Date of order: 07.12.2023

Sandeep Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent (s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present:Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶13

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
295	29.9.2023	Sadar Mansa,	409 IPC 52-A Prisons Act, Sections 7, 8, 11,
		District Mansa	13(1), 13(D) of the Prevention of Corruption
			Act, 1988, Sections 66C, 66D IT Act and
			Section 27A NDPS Act.

¶17

Apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner, who is posted as Pharamacy Officer at District Jail, Mansa and is on probation, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC by way of present petition which was filed on 29.11.2023.

¶18

In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that they have no criminal antecedents.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim order. He further submits that the petitioner is only a Pharmacy Officer and apart from first aid, he had to supply medicines as prescribed by the doctor, but the inmates asked for more and he being a probationer, they tried to pressurise him by unnecessarily naming him in the entire controversy. He further submits that the petitioner never carried his mobile phone inside the jail premises. There is no evidence that any phone call was ever made or received from his mobile phone to the family of any inmate from inside the jail. In fact, the petitioner is not entitled to enter the jail premises with mobile phone. He

¶20

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.08 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-60350-2023

¶23

2023:PHHC: 156346

¶24

further submits that although investigation is going on but it is not a case for pre-trial incarceration or custodial interrogation.

¶25

State has filed reply in Court which is taken on record.

¶26

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the petition as well as the status report dated 4.12.2023 filed by way of affidavit of concerned DySP.

¶27

Vide order dated 1.12.2023, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner which is continuing till date.

¶28

Case of the prosecution as culled out from the reply filed by the State is that one inmate Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Arora after his release from jail on 18.7.2022 gave an interview to media with regard to the illegal activities going in the jail. He had named three jail officials and also alleged that drugs are being supplied in jail, apart from the allegation that mobile phones are being used in jail. On that, the police conducted an inquiry and the same allegations were found to be correct. The role of the petitioner, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the status report, is extracted here-inbelow:-

¶29

“4. ROLE OF PETITIONER:

¶30

That petitioner is actively involved in the supply of drugs inside the jail and there are certain financial transactions which have been traced and the role of petitioner with respect to both the above aspects is being investigated thoroughly. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner shall be of utmost importance as the matter is very serious and the entire nexus needs to be unearthed.”

¶31

However, as on date, there is no allegation that the petitioner had received any money. As far as his role regarding supply of intoxicants in jail is concerned, there is no corroborative evidence to the statement of the said inmate.

¶32

Given above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 24.11.2023 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶34

December 07, 2023 AK Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶35

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.08 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Neeraj Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Singh@Channi Vs State of Punjab

Shubham Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Anil Vij Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Patwari Vs State of Haryana