IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 14, 2008 Crl. Misc. No. M-28226 of 2008 Rachhpal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ..Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-28555 of 2008 Prithpal Singh @ Bittu … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-28460 of 2008 Devinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Manjari Nehru, DAG, Punjab. S.D. Anand, J. The prosecution allegations are that the three petitioners (Rachhpal Singh in Crl. Misc. No. 28226 of 2008, Prithpal Singh in Crl. Misc. No. 28555 of 2008 and Devinder Singh Crl. Misc. No. 28226 of 2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 28460 of 2008) are engaged in the smuggling of liquor and they get large quantity of English liquor transported by truck bearing registration no. HR-38E-3828 on the relevant date. The police, acting on the basis of a secret information, apprehended truck aforementioned which was being driven by Harmeet Singh @ Meeta son of Balwinder Singh. The three petitioners before this Court escorted / followed that truck while they were travelling by an Indica Car bearing registration No. 7086. The capture was indeed made by the police. The Court of Sessions declined the pleas filed by the petitioners before it, vide order dated 23.09.2008. In the course of that order, it was noticed that petitioner – Rachhpal Singh is a Head Constable in the Police Department. At the time of motion hearing, the learned counsel for that petitioner challenged the correctness of that averment by arguing that petitioner – Rachhpal Singh had never been a police employee and that he is running his own business. In the face of that averment, the learned State counsel concedes that petitioner – Rachhpal Singh had never been a police employee. Petitioner – Rachhpal Singh was not captured at the spot. It cannot, thus, be said that petitioner – Rachhpal Singh is the same person who succeeded in fleeing from the spot. It follows therefrom, that the observation made by the learned Court of Sessions has been found to be factually incorrect. 2 Crl. Misc. No. 28226 of 2008 The petition (Crl. Misc. No. 28226 of 2008 filed by petitioner – Rachhpal Singh) shall stand allowed, accordingly. It is ordered that, in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the arresting officer, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:- i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Insofar as petitioners – Prithpal Singh @ Bittu in Crl. Misc. No. M-28555 of 2008 and Devinder Singh in Crl. Misc. No. M-28460 of 2008, are concerned, there are precise allegations against them in the FIR itself. Their custodial investigation would enable the police to find out their nexus with the person who was apprehended while driving the truck under reference. The case qua them is not of the type wherein this Court to resort to the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of grant of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail filed by petitioners – Prithpal Singh @ Bittu and Devinder Singh shall stand declined. November 14, 2008 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 3