Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 1162 P&H

CRM-M-8920-2022                                                       -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                         CRM-M-8920-2022
                                                 Date of decision: 03.03.2022

Satnam Singh                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Punjab                                                ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

            (Through video conferencing)

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 13 dated 02.02.2022, registered under Sections 419,

420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur,

District Gurdaspur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was arrested in FIR No. 163 dated 18.08.2021 for an alleged recovery of 08

grams of heroin and later on, the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court,

vide judgment dated 01.02.2022 and was sentenced to undergo the period

already undergone by him.

Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner had

applied for bail in the aforesaid FIR, he was granted the concession of

interim bail, subject to the condition that he would furnish requisite

bail/surety bonds and in that process, one Kashmir Singh had furnished

surety bonds by presenting a Jamabandi, which on verification was found to

1 of 2

be non-existent.

Learned counsel further submits that the surety bonds were

furnished in the month of August, 2021 and thereafter, the petitioner has

faced the trial, which was concluded and only thereafter, the present FIR has

been registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was in

judicial custody when the bail/surety bonds were furnished and he had no

knowledge that aforesaid Kashmir Singh had produced fake documents.

Learned State counsel could not dispute the factual position,

however, opposed the bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without

commenting anything on the merits of the case, considering the aforesaid

facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the

conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, it will be open for the Investigating Officer to call

upon the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing him a

written notice in this regard.

03.03.2022                                      (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE




                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     2 of 2