In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-7061 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:23.3.2011 Gurwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.101 dated 21.9.2002 registered at Police Station D-Division, Amritsar for the offences under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (`Act' – for short). The FIR in the case was registered on the basis of memo submitted by ASI Vishwa Mitter who along with other Police officials was patrolling in a Government vehicle and was present at the check point in front of Railway Station Golbagh, Amritsar that information was received that in Golbagh Yogesh alias Pinku son of Ashok Kumar, Raj Kumar son of Ved Ram, Lachhman Singh son of Rajbir Singh, Broker Raj Mehra son of Nandu, Ravi Kumar son of Sushil Kumar, Raju son of Kailash Nath, Amit Kumar alias Bintu son of Vishnu, Gaurav Arora son of Jagdish Chander, Cr. Misc. No.M-7061 of 2011 [2] Upender Singh son of Raj Kumar, Dalip Singh son of Rajjeet Singh and Prem Kumar son of Teg Singh Raju son of Ramesh and Mahinesh son of Shiv Lal residents of various places were carrying on business of sale and purchase of kidneys by alluring and giving money to poor and innocent persons in connivance with other persons of the city. On the said date i.e. 21.9.2002, these persons in consultation with Tinku, Lachhman Singh and Raj Kumar had detained some persons for selling their kidneys. If immediate raid is conducted then accused could be arrested. On the basis of the said information certain persons were apprehended and after investigation, challan was filed against various persons including doctors. The petitioner is one of the persons who is said to have sold his kidney and appeared as a prosecution witness as PW-3. After his examination, an application was filed by the accused for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in terms of order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure-P.1) has summoned the petitioner as an additional accused. It was observed that the petitioner while making statement on oath in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was told that the accused would pay him `40,000/- for giving his kidney. They served meals to him thrice a day. The matter was settled for `75,000/- but he was paid `37,000/-. The petitioner has stated that this amount was taken by another accused. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the statement of the petitioner (PW-3) was sufficient to prima facie establish that he had offered to supply his kidney on payment and he, therefore, Cr. Misc. No.M-7061 of 2011 [3] violated the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, he was summoned. The petitioner filed an application for his anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 8.7.2010. Notice of motion was issued in the case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. The challan in the case, it is submitted, has already been filed and the trial is going on. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in the order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar it has been observed that the matter regarding giving of kidney was settled for `75,000/- but the petitioner was paid `37,000/-; besides, he has submitted that the amount was taken by another accused. Therefore, it is to be ascertained and established whether the petitioner had been paid any money for giving his kidney and if it is taken by another accused then whether the petitioner can be held to be liable. These aspects are to be considered by the trial Court after evidence is complete. However, for the present it may be noticed that the custody of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner in the event of his arrest is admitted to bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court within three days of the receipt of copy of this order. However, in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the said Court. Cr. Misc. No.M-7061 of 2011 [4] March 23, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*