Criminal Misc. -M 21821 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M 21821 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Daljeet Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The FIR was registered on a secret information that Rohit Chahbra, Satender @ Shunti, residents of Kishangarh and a friend of Shunti were involved in narcotic drugs. As they are going on their motor cycle bearing No. HR-07-M-5264 to Ambala Cantt., they can be caught with narcotic. On the basis of the information, a Naka was laid near petrol pump, Ambala Cantt. The motor cycle was stopped at the Naka. The driver of the motor cycle told his name as Rohit Chhabra son of Ved Parkash. The bag containing 900 grams of opium was found from his possession. In his disclosure statement, Rohit Chhabra informed that the contraband had been given to him by Daljeet Singh @ Shunti son of Dhanna Singh and Satender son of Sant Singh, both residents of Kishangarh and the motor cycle in question was given to them by one Hukam Chand son of Fauja Singh, resident of Jainpura. Criminal Misc. -M 21821 of 2011 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not known as Shunti. His name is Daljeet Singh. In the FIR, Satender @ Shunti has been named as an accused. He also produced a certificate given by the Gram Panchayat stating that the petitioner is not known as Shunti. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case, otherwise he does not know Rohit Chhabra or even the other accused in the FIR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the FIR was registered on a secret information. The information was found to be correct when the motor cycle was stopped at a Naka. One of the persons named in the FIR, i.e., Rohit Chhabra was arrested from the spot and 900 grams of opium was recovered from him. In his disclosure statement, he named the petitioner as one of the accused, who had handed over the opium to him for delivery at Ambala Cantt. As per the statement of Rohit Chhabra, he was merely a carrier. To bring the truth and find out from where the petitioner was procuring the contraband, his custodial interrogation is required. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against other three accused named by Rohit Chhabra in his disclosure statement, have been initiated. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Once the stand of the petitioner is that he does not know Rohit Chhabra, there was no question of his giving full particulars of the petitioner to have been involved in the present crime. It is only because of the apparent relations of the petitioner with Rohit Chhabra that he had specifically named the petitioner giving his parentage and complete address. From Rohit Chhabra, 900 grams of opium was recovered. Name of the owner of the motor cycle was also not mentioned in the FIR. The same also cropped up later on in the statement of Rohit Chhabra. None of other accused except Rohit Chhabra, who was apprehended at the spot, has been arrested. Considering the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Criminal Misc. -M 21821 of 2011 [3] Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.8.2011 mk