IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-1841 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2010. Gurcharan Singh @Dhulla. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Gurcharan Singh @Dhulla for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.147 dated 30.12.2009 under Sections 15/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’), registered at P.S. Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already joined the investigation in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court and that he is ready to join investigation again. It is further contended that petitioner has been illegally involved in this case by the police and that no recovery was effected from him. It is further contended that it is not believable that petitioner would run away despite the fact that so many police officials were present. Application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by ld. counsel for the State on the plea that name of petitioner-accused has been mentioned in the FIR and that he was identified by the police officials, who personally knew the accused. It has been further contended by ld. State counsel, on instruction from ASI. Virsa Singh, that he was involved in two other cases under NDPS Act and that hence, a dossier was prepared and watch was being kept on him. It is further contended that he was having a plastic bag in his possession and that he escaped from the spot after leaving the bag containing 30 kg. of poppy husk. It is further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner – accused is necessary in view of the fact that he is also involved in two other cases under NDPS Act and hence, he is not entitled for extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. I have considered all the facts of the case. Name of the petitioner – accused is mentioned in the FIR. He was recognised by the police officials. He is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Hence, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused. Hence, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Gurcharan Singh @Dhulla is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 3, 2010. JUDGE 'om'