In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-5433 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:14.3.2008 Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is the second application for grant of pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner. The earlier petition was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.52951-M of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of filing the earlier petition the affidavits dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure-P.5) and 12.11.2007 (Annexure-P.6) of Harjinder Singh son of Darshan Singh and Sukhchain Singh son of Pala Singh respectively could not be attached. In terms of the affidavit (Annexure-P.5) of Harjinder Singh it has been stated that on 27.9.2007 i.e. the date of occurrence, the petitioner had come to Village Tappa Khera, Tehsil Malout, Distt. Mukatsar in his truck No.RJ- 31GA-1527 for collecting sand. It is submitted by Harjinder Singh- deponent that he personally knows the petitioner who usually comes to their Cr. Misc. No.M-5433/2008 [2] village for collecting sand. In terms of the affidavit (Annexure-P.6) of Sukhchain Singh it is deposed that he is Sarpanch of Village Kakhanwali, Tehsil Malout, District Mukatsar. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is having his own truck, had come in the afternoon of 27.9.2007 to Village Kakhanwali in his truck No.RJ-31GA-1527 to deliver sand. The petitioner, it is stated, was present on 27.9.2007 afternoon at Village Kakhanwali. In terms of the affidavits Annexures-P.5 and P.6, a plea of alibi is sought to be raised to the effect that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is further stated that at the time of occurrence, the Scorpio vehicle in which the petitioner is stated to have escaped could not have turned back to the same direction i.e. towards Bhiwani side from which it was coming in view of the heavy Police barricade (Naka). Therefore, it is submitted that a false FIR has been registered and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record as also the earlier order dated 13.12.2007 passed by this Court declining the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It may be noticed that the Police had received information that from Bhiwani side Tata 709 vehicle was coming in which Harpreet Singh and Surjit Singh were sitting. Said vehicle, it was informed, was carrying bags of poppy straw hidden under the bags of onions and cabbage. In front of the vehicle there was a red colour Scorpio vehicle which was driven as a Pilot vehicle. At the barricade that was set- up the Tata vehicle was signalled to stop. In the meantime, a youth sitting on the rear side of the vehicle immediately got down and sat in the Scorpio Cr. Misc. No.M-5433/2008 [3] vehicle which was coming from behind. He succeeded in escaping towards Bhiwani. The accused Harpreet Singh and Surjit Singh, who were sitting in the Tata 709 vehicle were apprehended. On search of the Tata 709 vehicle, 21 bags of poppy straw were recovered which were lying under the bags of onions. Sample of the poppy straw was taken. A perusal of the affidavits Annexures-P.5 and P.6 which have now been filed would show that they have been deposed earlier to the passing of the order dated 13.12.2007 declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The said affidavits were not filed with the petition when the earlier petition was filed. In any case, as already noticed, the same are in the nature of alibi which is liable to be considered by the Police during the course of investigation. The statements of the co- accused Surjit Singh and Harpreet Singh have been recorded. A statement of a co-accused though cannot by itself be treated as substantive evidence, however, it can be taken into consideration for the purpose of investigating the case. Besides, while declining the earlier application for bail filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2007 it was submitted by the prosecution that the custody of the petitioner was required to ascertain his other activities in the trade of Narcotics. The fact that the vehicle could not turn back to the same direction from which it was coming in view of the heavy Police barricade, it may be noticed that the Tata 709 vehicle was signalled to stop and the Scorpio vehicle is not stated to have been signalled to stop. The petitioner was sitting on the rear of the Tata 709 vehicle and is reported to have got down and sat in the Scorpio vehicle which went towards Bhiwani side i.e. the direction from which it was coming. The said circumstance is not such which would require consideration at the stage of consideration of an Cr. Misc. No.M-5433/2008 [4] application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The possibility of its turning back from the direction from which it was coming cannot entirely be ruled out in view of the fact that it was never signalled to stop. In view of the foregoing circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. March 14, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No