The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with the petition filed against the order dated 29.09.2021 under Section 169 Cr.P.C for seeking his release from judicial custody in the criminal case.
Brief Facts:
The receipt of a secret information regarding the petitioner and his co-accused Gurjant Singh, Varinder Singh and Prem Singh having been indulging in bringing the opium from Rajasthan and selling the same at higher rates in the area. The police party laid a picket and intercepted the Car and the accused were found sitting in the same. The search of the Car allegedly resulted in the recovery of 'opium' weighing 3 kg. During the investigation, the petitioner was reportedly found to be innocent. Resultantly, the petitioner moved the afore-said application wherein the impugned order has been passed.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the investigation of the case, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police concerned and though as per the enquiry report, the petitioner was found to be innocent but the police did not move any application for seeking his release from the judicial custody as envisaged under Section 169 Cr.P.C and due to this reason, the petitioner was constrained to file the application under the said provisions but the same has wrongly been dismissed by the Court and hence, this order is liable to be set aside.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the state has submitted that while appreciating the material available on the record after the submission of the Challan, the trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner in this case and has passed the impugned order which is perfectly legal and therefore, this petition be dismissed.
HC’s observations:
After the submissions made by both the parties the HC observed that the petitioner is stated to be accompanying by three co-accused in the car at the time of its interception by the police party and he was also apprehended at the spot. It has been mentioned in the Short Reply that during the investigation, the grand-father of the petitioner moved an application pleading his innocence therein and praying for conducting an enquiry in the matter and in the enquiry as conducted pursuant thereto, the petitioner was found to be innocent.
The Court also observed that “a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has categorically observed therein that it was not inclined to consider the said enquiry report exclusively so as to release the petitioner from the custody and in the concluding para of the said order, it has also been specifically mentioned that on the basis of the material available on the record coupled with the statement of the Investigating Officer corroborating the factum of the recovery of opium from the possession of the petitioner and his said co-accused, the cognizance is taken against the petitioner so as to put him to the trial after the framing of the charges. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the Court below has declined to rely upon the said enquiry report qua the innocence of the petitioner and has, rather, taken the cognizance against him on the basis of the material as available on the file after the presentation of the Challan.”
HC held:
The HC after evaluating various submissions made by both the parties the court held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. The Court dismissed the revision petition.
Bench: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta
Case Title: Harashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details: CRR No.1317 of 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
