IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-6854 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 29, 2010 Harchand Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.295 dated 28.10.2009 under Sections 225-A, 343, 384 IPC; Sections 29 & 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered with Police Station, Banga, District Nawanshahr. On 10.3.2010, the following order was passed:- Crl. Misc. No. M-6854 of 2010 [2] “This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.295 dated 28.10.2009 under Sections 225-A, 343, 384 IPC; Sections 29 & 21 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered with Police Station, Banga, District Nawanshahar. Learned counsel contends that recovery of Rs.1,65,000/- from the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal gratification in so much as the money was withdrawn from his account. Learned counsel further states that prosecution case against the petitioner stands falsified as telephone calls do not connect the petitioner with the crime. There is no legal evidence against the petitioner. Notice of motion for 29.4.2010. The investigating officer is required to file his affidavit clearly indicating the incriminating material collected against the petitioner which would connect him with the crime. Requirement of filing reply is there because nature of offence is serious. The petitioner is a public servant, who allegedly, allowed two persons dealing in narcotics (smack) to escape.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2009. Investigation has been concluded. Learned counsel further contends that co-accused of the petitioner has been allowed bail by this Court vide Order dated 4.3.2010 while dealing with Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-36105 of 2009 titled `Gurinder Singh vs. State of Punjab’. Crl. Misc. No. M-6854 of 2010 [3] Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Nawanshahr. Heavy surety. (AJAI LAMBA) April 29, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?