IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36966 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.12.2009 Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj @ Sukha …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The prosecution case is that the Police party were going from Mukerian to village Kasitpur, Bela Khera, Mahmoodpur Batala, Tanpur, Budhagarh etc. When they reached near Shankar Nala bridge of village Dhanpur then from the side of village Dhanpur, a clean shaven person was seen coming on the scooter who was going towards village Mahmoodpur Batala. The Head Constable who was present along with other police officials, signalled him to stop but he jumped from his scooter and ran away. While running he was identified as Sukhdev Raj @ Sukha (petitioner). The Head Constable already knew him. They tried to stop the petitioner by raising their voice but he did not stop. On checking of the scooter, two plastic cans which were tied from the back seat of the scooter and one was Crl. Misc. No. M-36966 of 2009 [2] on the footrest, were recovered. These were found to contain illicit liquor. Samples of that illicit liquor were taken. As per the FIR, 147 bottles of illicit liquor which were in three plastic cans were recovered from the scooter of the petitioner. The same were taken in possession by the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not have been identified while running away and the story is highly improbable. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. The scooter of the petitioner was found to be carrying 147 bottles of illicit liquor in three plastic cans. The question whether the Head Constable could recognize the petitioner or not is not to be gone into at this stage. Therefore, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 24, 2009 amit