CHAMAN LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 8903M and 8880-M both of 1993, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

(2.) S . I. Baljit Singh of CIA Staff-UT, Chandigarh, lodged First Information Report No. 139 at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, based on the receipt of secret information. According to the report, Ashwani Kumar alias Mohinder, Harjit Singh alias Jeetu, both residents of Ambala Cantt. and one Charanjit Singh, resident of Ludhiana, were alleged to have committed various offences The main allegation against them was that they manufactured spurious LPG Cylinders, filled them with LPG illegally and sold them to unwary customers mostly through those running various LPG distribution agencies. It was also alleged that Ashwani was bringing a consignment of a large number of such cylinders and valves from Delhi to Chandigarh by truck No. HRO-1B-2381. A case under Section 9 and 12 of the explosives Act and Section 486, 487, 488 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the police station and investigation started.

(3.) A number of Crl. Misc. petitions were made for anticipatory bail by various persons house names came on record in the course of investigation of the above case. These applications were disposed of by G. S. Chahal, J. by order dated August 12, 1993. On behalf of the State, it was conceded that no material having been collected against six of the applicants named therein, they were not required to be arrested at that stage. It was directed by the learned Judge that if and, when the police decides to arrest them, one week's notice in writing shall be given to them, so that they can apply for bail and the matter can be decided in the light of the material collected by the police. With regard to R. S. Virk and C. S. Randhawa, the past and present Managing Directors of the Company, it was observed that on the basis of material collected during investigation, it could not be definitely said that they were incharge of the business of the company at the material time. They were, therefore, allowed interim bail and directions issued by the Court in its earlier order dated July 28, 1993, were confirmed