IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37541 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.12.2010 Mohinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 19.3.2010 for the offences under Sections 356 and 379 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Neelam Gandhi who is a house wife. On the date of incident i.e. 19.3.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. the complainant Neelam Gandhi was standing opposite the gate of House No.1083, New Housing Board Colony, Karnal. At that time, a black colour motorcycle on which two young boys were riding came and the boy sitting on the pillion snatched the gold chain worn by the complainant from her neck. The complainant found the locket which had fallen down but the boys fled away on the motorcycle with the chain weighing about 15 gms. It was requested that action be taken. Crl. Misc. No. M-37541 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is implicated merely on the statement of the co-accused namely Sanjay. Otherwise, there is nothing which connects him with the alleged incident. It is submitted that the chain has already been recovered from the co-accused Sanjay and he has been granted regular bail. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner is aged 42 years and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a young boy and he is sought to be implicated due to party faction in the village. Learned counsel has submitted that various Panchayats have passed resolutions to the effect that the petitioner is a respectable person of the village and not involved in such activities. It is submitted that the bail application of the petitioner has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal primarily because of the fact that as many as five FIRs are shown to be registered against the petitioner. The said fact has now been duly explained by the petitioner in his complaint to the Human Rights Commission as to how he has been implicated in the other cases. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been named as an accused by his co-accused Sanjay. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required by the Police so as to ascertain his involvement in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in her order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P1) while declining bail to the petitioner has observed that the custody of the petitioner is necessary Crl. Misc. No. M-37541 of 2010 [3] for further investigations by way of recovery and demarcation of the place of occurrence as also for identification parade etc. Indeed the custody of the petitioner would be required for the said purposes. Besides, the petitioner is said to be involved in five other FIRs. The question regarding the petitioner having certificates from the various Panchayats as to his character and not indulging in such activities may be submitted before the Police authorities and it is for them to consider the same. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 22, 2010 amit