Criminal Misc. No. M-29661 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-29661 of 2009 Date of Decision:27.10.2009 Jagdish .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Jagdish under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.54 dated 11.4.2006 registered under Sections 363/366/120-B of IPC at Police Station Baroda. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not living in the village at the time when Darshna alleged to have eloped with him and furthermore, it is an admitted fact that she was major at the time of alleged occurrence. As against this, the learned State Counsel pressed into service that the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat in his order dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P.2) has mentioned that the petitioner had made a statement Criminal Misc. No. M-29661 of 2009 -2- before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat that Darshna has got married with the petitioner and they were leading a normal life as husband and wife, but subsequently he changed his stand and completely denied the stated fact. Thus, in such circumstances, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I have well considered the rival contentions. In order dated 5.10.2009 ibid, it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer and he deliberately withheld the information in respect of the whereabouts of the missing female, namely, Darshna. Furthermore, the learned State Counsel after having received instructions from the Investigator has submitted that Darshna has not been recovered as yet. This apart, it is mentioned with specificity in the said order that “the interim bail was granted on the previous date of hearing on the plea that Darshna had married petitioner Jagdish and that they were living a normal life as man and wife but the petitioner subsequently changed his stand and completely denied the alleged factum of her association with him.” To my mind, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the whereabouts of Darshna. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-29661 of 2009 -3- 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 disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” The provisions of Section 438 ibid cannot be invoked where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. A Court considering an application under this Section must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duties and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 438 ibid, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition merits dismissal. Thus, this petition is dismissed. October 27, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE