CRM No. M-17196 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-17196 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2009 Gurjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489 IPC, at Police Station Mallanwala, vide FIR No.144 dated 25th September, 2008. The allegations in the FIR are that Sukhwinder Singh and Gurjeet Singh (petitioner) deal in smuggling of heroin and fake currency from Pakistan. On this information, a raid was conducted by the police in which Sukhwinder Singh was nabbed. Fake currency of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from him. Sukhwinder Singh later disclosed that fake currency had been given to him by Gurjeet Singh, the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and thus he has been falsely implicated in the case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given CRM No. M-17196 of 2009 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. The petitioner moved the court of Sessions at Ferozepur for grant of anticipatory bail. However, the same was dismissed. The prosecution disclosed to the said court that the petitioner had already been convicted and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment in a case where fake currency to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs and opium weighing 2 Kgs. were recovered from him. The prosecution also revealed that the petitioner is the real kingpin in the area of such crime. The petition for anticipatory bail was thus dismissed by the said court. In my considered view, the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature and his custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. Under the circumstances, the petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 09, 2009 'rajpal'