Crl.M.No.M-9885 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-9885 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 4, 2011 Sukhdev Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.18103 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-9885 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.57 dated 22.2.2010, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. This is the third application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of present petitioner-accused. First application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner-accused was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on merits vide order dated 21.5.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M-14779 of 2010, when the same was opposed on behalf of the State. Second application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was also dismissed on merit by this Court, as the same was opposed by learned State counsel, vide order dated 10.12.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-33707 of 2010. Crl.M.No.M-9885 of 2011(O&M) -2- Brief facts are that on 22.2.2010, Devinder Singh, Sub Inspector alongwith other police officials happened to be present nearby Octroi Post, Jagraon, for checking of suspected persons and vehicles, when he received a secret information that present petitioner alongwith her three sons, namely, Gulshan Singh @ Gossa, Shamsher Singh @ Shema, Hari Singh @ Happy and her nephew, namely, Harjinder Singh, who are co- accused, used to indulge in business of selling poppy husk in their house and if raid is conducted, poppy husk can be recovered from their possession in huge quantity. On the basis of secret information, case was registered. Raid was conducted at the house of petitioner. Petitioner alongwith co-accused was spotted at the place of recovery and, however, on catching sight of the police party, petitioner alongwith three persons except Hari Singh ran away from the spot. On search, poppy husk weighing 1 quintal and 5 kgs was recovered from the house owned and possessed by the present petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Shamsher Singh and Harjinder Singh were already granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and hence, petitioner is also entitled for anticipatory bail. Petitioner has been absconding since 22.2.2010. Her application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, as well as by this Court twice. Recovery was allegedly made from the house owned by the petitioner. She was spotted at the place of recovery and, however, after seeing the police party, she alongwith some other co-accused succeeded in running away. Her first application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by placing reliance upon State Represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), wherein it has been observed as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is Crl.M.No.M-9885 of 2011(O&M) -3- of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present application filed for anticipatory bail by petitioner-Sukhdev Kaur is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge