Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: August 3, 2010 Mukandbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-19567 of 2010 (O&M) Puran Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-18866 of 2010 (O&M) Amar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This order shall dispose of above mentioned three petitions for pre-arrest bail, preferred by the petitioners in respect of a case registered against them under Sections 213, 217 IPC read with Sections 7 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Chheharatta, District Amritsar, vide FIR No.96 dated 29th May, 2010. Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 2 Brief factual background of the case is that one Gulzar Singh lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 29th May, 2010, he had gone to Vishal Mega Mart, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar along with his son for some domestic work. They parked their motor cycle there and went for some shopping. When they came back, they found the motor cycle missing. They gave this information to Police Post, Ranjit Avenue. Later they received a phone call from Head Constable Amar Singh that their motor cycle had been found. Said Amar Singh promised Gulzar Singh that the motor cycle would be returned. It appears that by that time the police had come to know about the person, who had allegedly stolen the motor cycle. They had received secret information that stolen motor cycle was being kept by Palwinder Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of Guru Nanakpura, Amritsar. Resultantly, Head Constable Dilbagh Singh, Head Constable Rachhpal Singh and PHG Pardeep Kumar were sent to recover the same and to arrest Palwinder Singh son of Puran Singh. These police officials after recovering the motor cycle, handed over the same to ASI Ashok Kumar and Palwinder Singh was also produced before ASI Ashok Kumar. No formal arrest was shown. Amar Singh and Palwinder Singh thereafter contacted Head Constable Amar Singh to ask him to hush up the matter. H.C. Amar Singh contacted ASI Ashok Kumar on telephone but he being away to attend a hearing in Punjab and Haryana High Court, told him to contact MHC Mukandbir Singh. H.C. Amar Singh in turn contacted MHC Mukandbir Singh, but was told to arrange Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 3 Rs.20,000/- for doing the job. Amar Singh thereafter contacted Puran Singh and asked him to arrange the money. Puran Singh was able to arrange Rs.17,000/-. Thereafter, he alongwith his brother-in-law Balbir Singh met Mukandbir Singh and delivered Rs.17,000/- to him. At that time, H.C. Harjinder Singh, Reader/Incharge was present in Police Station. After the money was handed over, accused Palwinder Singh, who was kept in custody without showing any formal arrest, was released and motor cycle was handed over by Head Constable Amar Singh to Gulzar Singh, the original owner. The present FIR was thus lodged on the ground that ASI Ashok Kumar, MHC Mukandbir Singh, H.C. Harjinder Singh and H.C. Amar Singh with common intention had committed offence of taking illegal gratification of Rs.17,000/- from Puran Singh and his brother-in-law Balbir Singh in order to hush up commission of a crime and to release accused Palwinder Singh. Resultantly, they were booked under Sections 213, 217 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Sections 7 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that there is no link evidence to connect the petitioners with the crime. He submits that allegations levelled are per se unbelievable. According to them, the prosecution has concocted a false story with a view to implicate certain police officials due to internal rivalry in the department. They submit that in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, they are entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 4 Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed this prayer and has submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected so far that after the stolen motor cycle was recovered by the police officials and they came to know about the accused, they did not formally arrest him. On the other hand, they demanded money from him (accused) to let him off. According to him, this is a serious crime and thus, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that Palwinder Singh was found to be in possession of a stolen motor cycle. After police came to know about this fact, Puran Singh and Palwinder Singh contacted Head Constable Amar Singh for hushing up the matter. The said police official then contacted ASI Ashok Kumar on phone. Since ASI Ashok Kumar was out of station, he asked Amar Singh to contact Moharrer Head Constable Mukandbir Singh. A demand of Rs.20,000/- was made for release of motor cycle and hushing up the matter. It appears that during this period accused Palwinder Singh was kept in custody, though there was neither any formal FIR regarding theft of motor cycle nor any formal arrest. The accused were, however, able to arrange Rs.17,000/-, which they allegedly handed over to Mukandbir Singh. Thereafter, accused Palwinder Singh was released from custody and motor cycle was handed over by Head Constable Amar Singh to Gulzar Singh, the owner of the bike. Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 5 In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the manner of commission of the crime, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have no case for grant of pre-arrest bail. There can be no gainsaying the fact that pre-arrest bail is a concession and not a right. In a crime of this nature where police officials are alleged to have conspired with each other to hush up a matter regarding stolen property and to release the accused, no case for extending this concession is made out. On the other hand, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. In this context, observations of the apex court in State rep. by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, may be of relevance, wherein the apex court observed as under:- “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of Crl. Misc. No. M-19602 of 2010 6 disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In view of above, I am of the considered view that no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. All the three petitions, are thus, hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 03, 2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No