Crl. Misc. No. M-31655 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31655 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 28, 2010 Balwant Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in case FIR No. 186 dated 29.12.2006 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, P.S. Julka, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-4 which is an investigation report by SP(D), Patiala dated 14.05.2007. On investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent. SHO, P.S. Julka was directed that real accused be traced. Annexure P-5 is an opinion by Deputy District Attorney (Legal), Patiala which endorses the investigation report of SP(D). It further transpires that the petitioner had shifted to Ambala and this fact finds mention in the investigation report Annexure P-4. Learned counsel, under the circumstances, contends that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the matter. Petitioner was not aware that on subsequent Crl. Misc. No. M-31655 of 2009 2 inquiries/investigations, a different opinion would be formulated by the investigation agency. Under the circumstances, the order declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender cannot be held against the petitioner while considering the issue of bail. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from H.C. Harjinder Singh, admits the veracity of Annexures P-4 and P-5. Learned counsel, however, states that subsequent inquiries were conducted and it was revealed that the petitioner in fact is the offender. On a query of the Court, the State Counsel informs the Court that an attempt to serve the petitioner in Julka was made. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to answer the query of the Court as to under what circumstances the petitioner was not served in Milap Nagar, Ambala City, which fact had already come on the record of the investigation agency. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that investigation report Annexure P-4 as accepted by DDA (L), Patiala Annexure P-5 found the petitioner to be innocent; the petitioner had shifted residence to Ambala which fact had already come on the record of the investigating agency and no attempt to serve the petitioner at Ambala was made and under these circumstances the petitioner could not have been declared a proclaimed offender and further the fact that investigation in the matter is already complete and conclusion of trial is likely to take time, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court. Heavy surety. 28.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE