Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Diwakar @ Mee vs State Of Punjab on 28 December, 2023
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165929
102 2023:PHHC:165929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65486-2023
DECIDED ON: 28.12.2023
MANISH DIWAKAR @ MEE .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 438
Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.84, dated
21.09.2023, under Section 21-B of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station
Daresi, Ludhiana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been
named by the main accused namely Pankaj Kumar actually from whom the alleged
contraband of 125 grams of heroin was recovered. The attention of this Court has
been brought that Pankaj Kumar on seeking the police party threw the plastic bag
after taking it out from his right pocket and made an attempt to run away, but was
apprehended by the police party at the spot. It is during investigation after his arrest
on 21.09.2023, the present petitioner has been named on 23.09.2023, as has been
stated by Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab, who is appearing on advance notice.
3. On a specific query put by this Court as to what is the material to
connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, learned State counsel states
that the petitioner is involved in another case bearing FIR No.35 of 2022, registered
at Police Station STF Mohali under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 and the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165929
categoric statement of co-accused Pankaj Kumar is to the effect that the petitioner is
the supplier of contraband recovered from him. Apart from that there is no cogent
material has been brought to the notice of this Court.
4. Considering the factual aspects and the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, this Court is duly
convinced that the petitioner has no effective role with the contraband recovered
from Pankaj Kumar and as such this petition deserves to be allowed on that account
itself. As far as pendency of other case is concerned, this Court in various
judgments has already observed that pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-
petitioner cannot be a predicament to consider the case for anticipatory bail or
regular bail, as the evidence of the material involved in those FIRs can be treated in
those cases alone and is not material for the instant FIR.
5. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
petitioner to join the investigation, subject to his furnishing personal/security bonds
to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation
on 31.12.2023 at 10.00 AM with the Investigating Officer. However, it is made clear
that in case the petitioner fails to join the investigation on the stipulated date and
time given by this Court, respondent-State is at liberty to file an appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court. The petitioner
shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of
Cr.P.C.
6. Ordered accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
28.12.2023 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165929
2 of 2
