HARDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of this second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 115 dated 28.05.2012 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar City.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not present at the place of occurrence. It was the reason that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. His co-accused is facing the criminal trial who is none else but the younger brother of the petitioner. So far as the other similar case bearing FIR No. 7 dated 09.01.2009 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar was concerned, petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalandhar vide order dated 31.01.2011. On the maintainability of this petition, it being a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it has been filed under the changed circumstances, it is maintainable. To substantiate his arguments on the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 3 RCR(Cri) 30, a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 1 Crimes 289 and a Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court in Runu Roy v. State of Assam, 2006 3 AllIndCas 742. He prays for allowing the present petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is wholly misconceived as well as not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.