Criminal Misc. No. M 9993 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M 9993 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7-4-2010 Baljeet Singh .........Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri D.S.Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Baljeet Singh, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking his anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 178 dated 21.10.2009 under Sections 323,326,324,341,506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ambala. The facts in so far as are relevant for the decision of this petition are that on 8.9.2010 at about 4.30 P.M. Lala alias Baljit Singh (referring to the petitioner) gave a sword blows which hit left arm of Hardev Singh injured. The second sword blow given by the petitioner amputated the left arm of the said injured. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Obviously, the injuries attributed to the petitioner are of such a nature that his custodial interrogation is required. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports Criminal Misc. No. M 9993 of 2010 (O&M) 2 (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 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 Court considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duty and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Thus, taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this petition merits dismissal. Accordingly, this petition stands Criminal Misc. No. M 9993 of 2010 (O&M) 3 dismissed. Since the main petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 7, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No