PRINCEPAL SINGH ALIAS PRINCE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While issuing notice of motion on 8.8.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially arrested and released on regular bail as the case registered was for recovery of non-commercial quantity of drugs. Thereafter, offence under Section 411 IPC was added as the motor-cycle used in the crime was found to be stolen. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail. Now the petitioner is sought to be arrested in old FIR registered under Section 379 IPC, where the petitioner has not been named as an accused."

(2.) The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. However, he submitted that motor-cycle was recovered from the petitioner, the case regarding theft thereof was already registered on 2.2.2009 and in that FIR, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. The offence being non-bailable, the petitioner is required to be taken into custody.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody earlier in FIR No.28 dated 7.4.2011 where one of offence was regarding possession of stolen property namely, the motor-cycle in question and he was taken into custody and released on regular bail, in my opinion in the present case, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody. He shall appear before Investigating Officer on 19.9.2011 at 10 A.M. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.