Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sudesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2017

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                  -1-
CRM-M-28122-2017


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M-28122-2017
                                          Date of Decision:24.10.2017

Sudesh Kumar

                                                           ... Petitioner
                                        Versus

State of Punjab

                                                          ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:     Mr. Devender Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ayush Sarna, AAG, Punjab.

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Sudesh Kumar has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.86 dated 05.07.2017, registered at Police Station Lambra, Jalandhar, under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that in pursuance of the interim order dated 03.08.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner did not join the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 26-10-2017 00:40:31 ::: -2- CRM-M-28122-2017 investigation. On 09.10.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner again requested that one more opportunity be given to the petitioner to join the investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner was again directed to join the investigation and to appear before the Arresting/Investigating Officer specifically on 11.10.2017 at 10.00 A.M. However, the petitioner has not joined the investigation so far.

Since the petitioner has not joined the investigation and not complied with the orders of this Court, therefore, no ground is made out to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.




24.10.2017                                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar                                                     JUDGE



Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes
                Whether reportable                       :      No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 26-10-2017 00:40:32 :::