High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurvir Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Punjab Excise Act, 1914 — Section 61, 78 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 31270 Of 2020 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 410 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.251, dated 16.11.2018, Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda,

under Sections 61 and 78 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.

2.

The FIR was lodged pursuant to receipt of a secret information that a vehicle was lying abandoned in an accidental condition in which there was

illicit liquor. Upon receipt of said information the police went to the spot and recovered 156 bottles of country-made liquor (Shahnai) meant to be sold

in State of Haryana.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is neither named in the FIR nor was even arrested from any place near the place from

where the vehicle was recovered from which the recovery of 156 bottles of country-made liquor is stated to have been effected, and is now sought to

be nominated as an accused after about 1 year and 9 months of lodging of the FIR on the ground that he had purchased the car in question from one

Gurpreet, who had further purchased the same from the original owner namely Damodar Shastri.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since during the course of investigation it had been found that the petitioner had

purchased the car in question, his complicity is clearly evident. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner is not involved in

any other case.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is sought to be nominated as an accused on account of the fact that the police claims that he is owner of

the car in question which in fact stands registered in the name of Damodar Shastri, which would in fact be debatable as the authenticity of the

documents of purchase by the petitioner is yet to be established and while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not stated to be involved in

any other case, the petition is accepted and it is ordered that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal

bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called

upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.