IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-30438 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.10.2010 Atma Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Present: Mr.Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. ... S.S.SARON,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint made by Ms.Pooja Andotra, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar. It has been alleged that Atma Singh (petitioner No.1) and Onkar Singh (petitioner No.2) furnished sureties for accused Mamta @ Manpreet Kaur who was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 23.8.2010 for the offences under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. It was observed by learned Magistrate that the petitioners were habitual of giving sureties in many cases. Therefore it was directed that appropriate action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any forgery and, therefore, FIR was – 2- Crl. Misc. No.M-30438 of 2010 not liable to be registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is submitted that since no offence under the said provisions of the IPC is made out, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that custody of the petitioners is required to ascertain the cases in which sureties have been given by the petitioners and whether the same have been given for extraneous considerations and also to ascertain whether any of the accused for whom they stood sureties have absconded. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioners are that they are habitual in giving sureties in favour of accused who have been granted bail. The said acts of giving frequent sureties for accused are such acts which are likely to affect the administration of justice. The learned Magistrate had during the course of furnishing sureties by the petitioners in a case observed that the petitioners had been giving sureties frequently. Therefore, she ordered for taking appropriate action. The police after noticing the facts and circumstances has registered the FIR in which investigations are to be carried out. The police requires the custody of the petitioners to ascertain whether any misrepresentation has been made by them in respect of persons for whom they stood as surety. Besides, for how many persons have the petitioners furnished sureties. It is also to be ascertained as to whether any of the accused for whom the petitioners gave sureties have absconded. The act of giving - 3 - Crl. Misc. No.M-30438 of 2010 sureties frequently for the accused who have been granted bail is not a normal conduct and one gives sureties for persons who are close to them and can repose confidence that the person for whom surety has been given would not misuse the same and abscond. Therefore, where sureties are being furnished by a person frequently does raise a suspicion that the act is not normal and that it may be for extraneous reasons, which affects the administration of justice. This would indeed be required to be investigated for which custody of the petitioners is required to carry out effective investigations. In a case of pre-arrest bail the benefit of custodial interrogation for eliciting more information and useful material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed. (S.S.SARON) 26.10.2010 JUDGE Janki