Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunny Khajuria vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2022
CRM-M-28772-2022 1
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28772-2022
Date of decision :06.09.2022
SUNNY KHAJURIA ... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR no.88 dated 28.06.2021 registered
under Section 21 and Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar, District Pathankot.
On 08.07.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"Inter alia contends that the present petitioner is a victim of
gross persecution and harassment and is running a battery shop
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that there was a financial dispute between the petitioner
and Amit Sooden on account of theft committed by the said accused
at the shop of the petitioner which was reported by the family of the
petitioner to the Panchayat and on 16.11.2017, the accused-Amit
Sooden was summoned by the Panchayat to resolve the dispute and
then it was settled that Amit Sooden will pay the amount as per the
accounts to the petitioner and on account of the same, the said Amit
Sooden felt offended and thereafter, Amit Sooden was arrested, from
1 of 4
whom the recovery of 5 kg 765 of cocaine was effected. It is
contended that the car which was involved in the offence does not
belong to the petitioner and the petitioner was not named in the
FIR and no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner
and the said Amit Sooden, as per the prosecution case, had given a
confessional statement on 28.06.2021 implicating Attar Chaudhary
and Kala Chaudhary and had not named the present petitioner and
it is only when the alleged second disclosure statement was suffered
by the said Amit Sooden while in police custody on 01.07.2021, on
the basis of which, GD No.54 dated 01.07.2021 was entered at
11:49 PM, as per which, the petitioner had been made as co-
accused It is further contended that in fact, as per the challan, there
is no such second disclosure statement. It is argued that by way of
crude padding, the statement of Ejaj Ahmad, who was already in
judicial custody in some other case, was also recorded, in which, he
had implicated the present petitioner and five other persons. It is
further argued that the petitioner was not present in District Jammu
or in Village Indira Nagar, PO Mira Sahib, Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu at the midnight of 14/15.06.2021. As per the case of
the prosecution, the alleged contraband was handed over to Amit
Sooden by various persons including the present petitioner
whereas, in fact, the present petitioner was in Phillaur District
Jalandhar in connection with his work, from 14.06.2021 till
20.06.2021, and the petitioner had obtained the call details of his
phone No.09797097888 for the period from 08.06.2021 up till
20.06.2021 and the same would show that the petitioner never
visited Village Indira Nagar, PO Mira Sahib, Tehsil R.S. Pura,
District Jammu, much less, at the midnight of 14/15.06.2021 and
the said record, in fact, reveals that on 14.06.2021 at about 8 pm,
the petitioner was in the area of Phagwara, District Kapurthala
and thereafter from, 15.06.2021 to 21.06.2021, he travelled to
Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, Phillaur, District Jalandhar and
other places falling within District Nawanshahar. Further reliance
has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1)
RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled "Mewa
Singh Vs. State of Punjab", and an order of another Coordinate
Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as
2 of 4
"Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" in support of abovesaid
arguments.
It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any
other case and the case of the present petitioner is on a much
higher footing than the case of Sheikh Ejaj Ahmed inasmuch as
Sheikh Ejaj Ahmed was involved in other cases and was in fact in
judicial custody in another case when his statement was recorded
and there are phone call details showing that Amit Sooden (main
accused), Sheikh Ejaj Ahmed and Kala Chaudhary were together
on 14/15.06.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father
has submitted various representations to the State that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated.
Notice of motion for 09.08.2022.
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.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
08.07.2022
Pawan"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Surinder Singh
has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not required
for further investigation.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances moreso,
the facts which have been noticed in the order dated 08.07.2022, and also
the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for
further investigation, the present petition is allowed and the interim order
dated 08.07.2022 is made absolute.
3 of 4
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 petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 06, 2022
Amandeep
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
