Allowed

Surinderpal Singh Alias Shinda v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2024CRM-M/3557/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court converted interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in an N.D.P.S. case into an absolute order. The court noted the petitioner had joined investigation and was not needed for custody. It imposed standard conditions and clarified the order does not provide blanket protection from arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. made absolute subject to conditions including joining investigation, abiding by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., and forfeiture of bonds.

Surinderpal Singh Alias Shinda Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

211 2024:PHHC:035136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-3557-2024 Date of decision : 12.03.2024

¶3

SURINDERPAL SINGH ALIAS SHINDA

....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Sourabh, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

On 23.01.2024, the following order was passed :-

¶13

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2024, under Sections 21(b), 27, 29, 61, 85 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶14

Inter-alia submits that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Khem Singh who was arrested and found to be in possession of 18 gram of heroin. Apart from the said disclosure, there is no incriminating evidence against petitioner and he has clean antecedents. Further submits that the disclosure suffered by co-accused cannot be relied upon to drive home the guilt qua petitioner in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 .

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/ State.

¶17

Adjourned to 12.03.2024.

¶18

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and

¶19

Deepak Kumar 2024.03.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-3557-2024 -22024:PHHC:035136

¶21

surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.”

¶22

Today, Ld. State Counsel submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

¶23

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 23.01.2024 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶25

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

¶27

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial.

¶28

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶29

March 12, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶30

Deepak Kumar 2024.03.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surinderpal Singh Alias Shinda v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinderpal Singh Alias Shinda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetpal @ Prita and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Parveen @ Bhandari Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Om Parkash etc. Vs Punjab Wakf Board Ambala

Parmod Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sahilpreet Singh @ Sahil Vs State of Punjab

Murti and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.