Crl. Misc. No.M-23832 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-23832 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011 Ram Dayal …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner, a Sub Inspector in Haryana police, seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 381 dated July 29, 2010 under Sections 347, 166, 384, 120-B IPC read with Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon. The said case was registered on the basis of the application submitted by Hans Raj Rathi, complainant, alleging that he had started running a Hi-tech Studio and Cyber Café at Rajiv Nagar after raising loan Crl. Misc. No.M-23832 of 2011 [2] from the banks. He was required by some unknown persons to pay a sum of ` 20000/- per month as illegal gratification to CIA Staff, Sector 46, Gurgaon but he did not take it seriously. On September 3, 2009 at about 5.00 p.m. his shop was raided by six persons who had come in Bolero vehicle. The articles including computers, key boards, laptop, Cameras, H.P. Printers, electric devices etc. alongwith one external hard disc were taken away by police. He was taken to the police station by the petitioner, HC Vinod, Constable Rajesh, Constable Janmitra, Constable Sunil Kumar, and one another. The entire episode was recorded at CCTV installed at the shop of the complainant. The complainant was maltreated and tortured and money was demanded. Money was snatched and complainant was involved in a criminal case showing his arrest to be of September 5, 2009. The complainant was released from jail on November 11, 2009. Thereafter he got seal of his shop opened. The complainant approached the higher authorities with CCTV footage. The matter was investigated and the allegations levelled in the complaint of abovesaid compliant were found to be correct. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present FIR is a counter-blast to FIR No.406 dated September 5, 2009 registered under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon, at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant, as the complainant and his two accomplice found preparing forged documents. Challan has been prepared and presented by Devender Kumar, Inspector before the Illaqa Magistrate. The successor of the petitioner had submitted Crl. Misc. No.M-23832 of 2011 [3] cancellation report in the said FIR after further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. but the cancellation report has not been accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the case against complainant Hans Raj Rathi is still pending and the cancellation report has not been accepted and he has submitted that there is cogent evidence available with the petitioner to establish that the date of arrest was September 5, 2009 and not September 3, 2009, as claimed by the complainant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on various annexures appended with the present petition which are arrest memo, jama talashi, application filed by the complainant mentioning that the complainant had been in custody w.e.f. September 5, 2009. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the police file carefully. No doubt, the FIR has been registered against the complainant that he was allegedly making fake ID cards in his cyber café but prima facie the date of arrest on the basis of C.D. footage appears to be September 3, 2009. No firm opinion can be expressed at this stage regarding the exact date of arrest on the basis of the material gathered. Besides this, the submission of cancellation report and its acceptance or non-acceptance does not have any bearing on the present FIR which has been registered against the petitioner. Rarely, some one raises his head against the atrocities and illegalities of the police officers. Grant of bail to the petitioner will tentamount to perpetuating the corruption. It has been informed that the petitioner has already been reinstated. On departmental Crl. Misc. No.M-23832 of 2011 [4] level, he is being shown leniency. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. September 7, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE