Crl. Misc. No. M-5758 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-5758 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.4.2011 Rinku alias Rajiv ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 15, 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind, vide FIR No.372 dated 12th December, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no material available on record to show that petitioner was involved in the commission of crime. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He has referred to the affidavit of Ram Singh, Superintendent of Police, Jind filed today in court. While referring to para 4 thereof, he submits that during investigation it was found that petitioner was in touch with other accused on mobile. On 12th Crl. Misc. No. M-5758 of 2011 December, 2010 at 0.59 A.M. the petitioner had talked with accused Shamsher and at that time his location was Rani Sati Road, Jhunjnu (Rajasthan) and on the same day at 8.29 A.M. the petitioner had also talked from mobile No.9813680648 and his location was Surajgarh, Chidwa (Rajasthan). In the disclosure statement of Shamsher, who was apprehended at the spot, he had clearly elaborated the role of the petitioner. This apart, the State counsel has emphasized that petitioner is also involved in six other cases, out of which in four cases he was convicted under the Gambling Act and two cases are under the NDPS Act. In case FIR No.147 dated 7th April, 2008, under Section 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station City Kaithal, he has been declared proclaimed offender by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide order dated 21st February, 2011. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that role of the petitioner has surfaced during investigation besides he is involved in other cases of similar nature. No case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 21.4.2011 'rajpal'