R.C. Kathuria, J.
1. Mangal Singh and Harinder Singh, petitionersaccused seek prearrest bail in case bearing FIR No. 95 dated 21.7.2002 registered under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') with Police Station, Raja Sansi, District Amritsar.
2. Prosecution allegations are that on 21.7.2002, Nirlep Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Raja Sansi along with other police officials was present on TPoint in the area of Village Kaler when he received a secret information to the effect that Jagir Singh alias Kala, Mangal Singh and Karnail SIngh were engaged in importing huge quantity of liquor from Chandigarh and other States to Amritsar and if raid is conducted at Village Kaler, the recovery could be made. Finding this information credible, intimation was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Thereafter, Nakabandi was held. A tractor trolley was noticed coming from the side of Ram Tirath Kaler. Four persons were sitting in the tractor trolley. Tractor trolley was got halted by the Investigating Officer. Three occupants sitting in the tractor trolley jumped out of it and ran away. Fourth occupant, Jagir Singh alias Kala, was apprehended at the spot. Thereafter search of the tractor trolley was conducted which led to the recovery of 143 cards boxes containing Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Officers Choice, 45 card boxes of Commando XXX Rum for sale in Punjab and 22 card boxes of Commando XXX Rum for sale in Chandigarh. Each card box had 12 bottles of liquor. Harinder Singh was sought to be linked with the crime because he and Mangal Singh had been running the business as agents and were engaged in the illegal trade of transportation and sale of liquor as disclosed by Jagir Singh alias Kala, coaccused who was working as a labourer with Mangal Singh. During the investigation of the case, the petitioners sought prearrest bail which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 5.8.2002.
3. Counsel representing the petitionersaccused, while pressing for their bail, contended before me that name of Harinder Singh, petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and during the investigation of the case the Police had not been able to collect any evidence showing his involvement in the commission of the crime. As regards Mangal Singh, it was stated that he was a partner of Harinder Singh and due to his old rivalry with liquor barons of Amritsar, both the petitioners had been sought to be involved in this false case. It was also pointed out that petitioner No. 2 had filed complaint dated 29.5.2000 against Tinku alias Inderjit Singh, Rinku and Baldev Singh, copy of the which has been placed on record as Annexure P3, and on that account the petitionersaccused had been victimised and involved in this case.
4. State counsel at the outset stated that so far Harinder Singh, accused is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to collect any evidence against him to show his involvement with commission of the crime. Regarding Mangal Singh, it has been submitted by him that merely because he escaped from the spot does not entitle him to claim concession of bail as his conscious possession along with other accused, who were present in the tractor, over the recovered liquor is substantiated on record.
5. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. So far as Harinder Singh, petitioneraccused is concerned, no incriminating circumstances qua him had been brought to the notice of this Court from the side of the prosecution at the time of arguments and as such his prayer for prearrest bail is accepted and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to his satisfaction undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down` under Section 438(2) of the Code.
As regards Mangal Singh his involvement in the commission of the crime is prima facie spelled out on record. I, therefore, find no justification to grant concession of bail to him and bail application qua him is rejected.
JUDGMENT accordingly.
