Criminal Misc. No. M-7105 of 2009 (O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-7105 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:18.03.2009 Randeep Singh alias Ghugga .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Randeep Singh alias Ghugga under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.82 dated 14.4.2008 registered under Sections 148, 307, 324, 323, 341, 149 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. The facts in brief are that on 14.4.2008 at about 2:00 P.M, Vijay Kumar and Ranjit alias Jiti armed with iron rod each, Sona, Randip alias Ghugga (referring to the petitioner) and Surinder Singh alias Chhinder armed with dattar each way laid Sukhdev Singh in the area of Village Hardikhanpur. Raman Kumari and Ashok Kumar were also accompanying Sukhdev Singh. Meanwhile, Surinder Singh alias Chhinder gave dattar blows which rested on the right arm and right knee of Sukhdev Singh. Sona dealt dattar blow which landed on the left elbow of Sukhdev Singh. Randeep alias Ghugga also delivered dattar blow which fell on the head and Criminal Misc. No. M-7105 of 2009 (O&M) -2 right little finger of Sukhdev Singh. Vijay and Ranjit alias Jiti gave number of blows on the person of Sukhdev Singh with iron rods. On being raised alarm by the injured, the assailants decamped from the spot with the respective weapons. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Mr. J.B.S.Gill, Advocate counsel for the petitioner urged with great eloquence that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared as simple in nature and that being so, he may be admitted to anticipatory bail. This contention merits rejection. Needless to say, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the head which is a sensitive and vital part of the body. This apart, one more injury has been attributed to him on the right little finger of the injured Sukhdev Singh. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-7105 of 2009 (O&M) -3 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. Taking into consideration the number, nature of injuries and the fact that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation is required, this petition is dismissed. March 18, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No