Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh Alias Sunny vs State Of Punjab on 23 November, 2022
CRM-M-45872-2022 -1-
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45872-2022
Date of decision : 23.11.2022
Manpreet Singh @ Sunny ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jagdish Singh Mahal, Advocate for the complainant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.80 dated 14.06.2022 registered under Sections 27,
29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 308, 34 of IPC have been added later on) at
Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.
On 30.09.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia
contends that the FIR was registered after a delay of three
days inasmuch as it was on 11.06.2022, when Manish @
Mani had left the house whereas the complaint had been
filed on 14.06.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated
20.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurdaspur in the FIR which was initially
registered under Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
It is contended that after a gap of three months i.e. on
1 of 4
05.09.2022, the complainant has got recorded a
supplementary statement and has alleged that the petitioner
and the co-accused Harpreet Singh had given beatings to his
brother Manish @ Mani on the date of the alleged incident.
It is further contended that there is no credible evidence or
medical evidence in support of the alleged beatings. It is
argued that even as per the FIR, it has been mentioned that
Manish @ Mani was a drug addict. It is further argued that
the police authorities cannot straightway arrest the
petitioner once the petitioner has been granted the
concession of bail by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 20.06.2022 and it
is necessary to obtain an order from the Court either qua
cancellation of bail or seeking permission to arrest the
petitioner on account of changed circumstances and has
relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pradeep Ram Versus State of Jharkhand and
another reported as 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 538. It is also
contended that the petitioner in order to show his bona fide,
is ready to give an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the injured-
Manish @ Mani without admitting his liability, for the
purpose of his medical expenses within a period of two
weeks from today.
Notice of motion for 20.10.2022.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner
shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing
personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of
Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner
shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so
and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section
438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is directed to prepare demand draft of
Rs.30,000/- in the name of injured-Manish @ Mani and is
2 of 4
also directed to give the same to the Investigating Officer
within a period of two weeks from today, who shall further
handover the same to the injured-Manish @ Mani after
getting a receipt from him
It is made clear that in case, the demand draft of
Rs.30,000/- is not given to the Investigating Officer
prepared in the name of the injured-Manish @ Mani within
a period of two weeks from today, then the present interim
relief granted in favour of the petitioner would be liable to
be vacated.
The payment of the amount of Rs.30,000/- would not
be construed as an admission of guilt by the petitioner. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
pursuance of the abovesaid order dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner has joined
the investigation.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Palwinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the
investigation. It is further submitted that although, the petitioner has
prepared a demand draft amounting to Rs.30,000/- in the name of injured-
Manish @ Mani but since Manish @ Mani did not have any account in his
name, thus, the said demand draft could not be credited and, therefore, the
said demand draft has been returned/handed over to the learned counsel for
the petitioner today in the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the trial
Court within a period of two weeks from today and would have no objection
in case the said money is released to the injured.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the
3 of 4
present case, Section 308 of IPC has also been added and thus, the petitioner
does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances moreso,
the facts which have been noticed in abovesaid order dated 30.09.2022 and
also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not
required for further custodial interrogation, the present petition is allowed
and the interim order dated 30.09.2022 is ordered to be made absolute.
The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/-
with the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and the trial
Court is directed to release the same in favour of injured-Manish @ Mani.
In case, the petitioner does not deposit the abovesaid amount
within the abovesaid period then it would be open to the State as well as
complainant to move an application for cancellation of the present
anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only
for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
23.11.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
