CRM-M-26751 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-26751 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.11.2011 Pankaj Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Ms.Deipa Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.398 dated 07.8.2011 under Sections 15, 29, 21(61) & 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar. The FIR is registered on the complaint of Sachin Kumar, Probationary Sub Inspector that he had received a secret information that Swaraj Mazda bearing No.UK-06H-9152 driven by Surender Kumar is coming from Kurukshetra side which is loaded with ‘petha’ and poppy husk is hidden thereunder. After completing the formalities, the alleged vehicle was intercepted and in the presence of DSP (Gazetted Officer) after taking consent of the driver, the vehicle was searched and 24 sacks of jute and 12 kattas of plastic were recovered from beneath the ‘petha’ which contained 1096.5 kg poppy husk. Surender Kumar disclosed that he had brought the contraband to deliver to Pankaj and gave his mobile numbers. In view thereof, the case was registered and the said Surender Kumar is in custody. The petitioner apprehended his arrest, therefore, he had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed CRM-M-26751 of 2011 - 2 - by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 23.8.2011. The petitioner then applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and during the course of hearing the said Inspector Sachin Kumar filed his affidavit dated 17.9.2011 in which he had made the following averments: “That subscriber of Mobile No.9728608700 and Mobile No.8929916888 is Manish Jerath son of Shri Vijay Kumar r/o House No.1122, Ward No.2, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar and this fact disclosed by Shri Shiv Shanker son of Shri Ram Avtar, resident of House No.550, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar in his statement made to the Police. The subscriber of Mobile No.9627017440 is Smt. Krishna Devi r/o Faizganj Behta. This mobile/number was recovered from Surinder Kumar accused on the day of his arrest and now the mobile set and sim of 9627017440 is in police custody. Surinder Kumar accused was using Mobile No.9627017440. That the calls were made and received by Mobile No.8929916888 (being used by Pankaj Kumar petitioner) to mobile No.9627017440 (being used by Surinder Kumar co-accused) on 15.04.2011, 19.04.2011, 20.04.2011, 21.04.2011, 25.04.2011, 28.04.2011, 17.7.2011, 21.07.2011, 25.7.2011 etc. and in the same manner the calls were made and received by Mobile No.9728608700 (being used by Pankaj Kumar petitioner) to Mobile No.9627017440 (being used CRM-M-26751 of 2011 - 3 - by Surinder Kumar co-accused) on 26.01.2011, 27.01.2011, 28.01.2011, 27.02.2011 and 28.02.2011, 01.03.2011, 02.03.2011 and 03.03.2011.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as initially in the FIR there were three mobile numbers mentioned by the arresting officer but later on 4th mobile number was also added. She further submits that none of the mobile number was in the name of the petitioner rather it has been found to be in the name of Manish Jerath. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which I have found that there are call details between Surender and the petitioner which have been mentioned in par No.6 of the affidavit of the Sub Inspector which indicates that they are known to each other and the calls have been made earlier to the registration of the FIR. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that there are also calls of the same day but those have not been produced on record before this Court. Be that as it may, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the custody of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 15, 2011 JUDGE Vivek