MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

1. Apprehending his arrest in the criminal case pertaining to the FIR bearing No.109 dated 15.04.2021 registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala, under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, the petitioner has preferred this petition for seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled in the subject FIR, are that when the police party was present at the toll plaza for Nakabandi (laying barricades), a car bearing registration No. PB-13BE-8753 was seen coming from Khanauri side and on seeing the police party, its driver tried to turn it back but it got damaged and stopped and its driver fled away from the spot but the person sitting in the car named Makhan Singh was nabbed, who disclosed the name of the petitioner as the driver of the said car and total 215 bottles of liquor were recovered during the search of the said vehicle.

3. Status-report filed on behalf of the respondent-State, by way of the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Patran, District Patiala, is already available on the file and the same is taken on the record.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel in the present petition and have also perused the file thoroughly.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not even present at the spot and his name has been roped in the present case merely on the basis of the disclosure statement as allegedly suffered by his co-ccused Makhan Singh and in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves the relief as prayed for in this petition.

6. However, learned State counsel argues that the name of the petitioner was categorically disclosed by his above-named co-accused, as the driver of the car and the said car belongs to the petitioner and in view of the gravity of the offence committed in this case, the instant petition deserves dismissal.

7. As specifically mentioned in the status-report, the abovesaid co-accused of the petitioner, who was nabbed while sitting in the car, had disclosed the name of the petitioner as the driver of the car, who had managed to escape from the spot. Moreover, the petitioner is also stated to be the owner of the said car. To add to it, as specifically mentioned in para No.7 of the status-report, one more case, registered at Police Station Longowal, under Section 61 of the Excise Act, is already pending against the petitioner.

8. Keeping in view the above-discussed facts and circumstances and also the gravity of the offence as committed in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed.