Jagmohan Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana on 7 August, 2009

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagmohan Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana on 7 August, 2009

Bench: L. N. Mittal

                          Crl. Misc. No. M-19836 of 2009                  1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                          Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-19836 of 2009
                          Date of Decision : August 07, 2009


             Jagmohan Aggarwal                       ....   Petitioner
                          Vs.
             State of Haryana                        ....   Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

                          *     *   *

Present :    Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
             with Mr. Saurav Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

                          *     *   *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Jagmohan Aggarwal has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 633 dated 30.06.2009, under Sections 420, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sections 102, 103 and 114 of the Trade Mark Act, registered at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

According to prosecution version, 210 cartons of two brands of spurious desi ghee were seized from Suresh Kumar and Raju, who on interrogation disclosed that the said spurious ghee has been supplied to Crl. Misc. No. M-19836 of 2009 2 them by the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that statements made by the co-accused to the police in custody are not admissible in evidence and there is no other material against the petitioner. However, this is not a sufficient ground for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail because the police could get the clue of origin of spurious ghee from the accused, from whom it was seized. It would be only after interrogation of the petitioner that the police would be able to collect further evidence against the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner at this stage, it would practically amount to his acquittal because no worthwhile evidence can be collected in that event against the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

August 07, 2009                                      ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika                                                      JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court