ANOOP CHITKARA
Vishav @ Bhanu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
|
| Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 180 | 29.11.2021 | PAU, District Ludhiana | 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Para 14 of the bail petition mentions the following criminal history:
|
| FIR No. | Date | Offences | Police Station |
| 1. | 137 | 24.09.2021 | Under NDPS Act | Daba |
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the police sought petitioner?s arrest because he was named by one of the co-accused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the grounds that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is also involved in another case under the NDPS Act.
REASONING:
5. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court he
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
GudikantiNarasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi
State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.