IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1082 of 2010. Date of decision: 27.09.2010. Vinod Kumar … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with M/s.K.L. Bali, Deepak Gupta, and A.P.Shukla, Advocates. . For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition is a sequel to Cr.M.M.O. No.189 of 2010 which was preferred by the petitioner praying for the relief(s) of (a) quashing the First Information Report; (b) issuance of non-bailable warrants by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan. That petition has been dismissed by me today by a separate order. 2. Petitioner seeks directions for release on bail in case the respondent-State seeks his arrest in FIR No.106 of 2010. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 4. Learned Additional Advocate General places reliance on the judgment in State Rep.by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, JT 1997(7) SC 651 holding:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated 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 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. 7. High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. Learned single Judge of the High Court 3 reminded himself of the principle that "it is well-settled that bail and not jail is a normal Rule" and then observed thus : "Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat the proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court which may defeat proper investigation to decline bail to the applicant." 8. The above observations are more germane while considering an application for post-arrest bail. Consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest. At any rate learned single Judge ought not have side-stepped the apprehension expressed by the CBI (that respondent would influence the witnesses) as one which can be made against all accused persons in all cases. The apprehension was quite reasonable when considering the high position which respondent held and in the nature of accusation relating to a period during which he held such office.” 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is required as that would be the only means of uncovering the crime. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is diabetic and is suffering from a number of other ailments requiring constant medical treatment. He also submits that in Cr.M.M.O. No.189 of 2010, a direction had been issued by this Court that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan and that in compliance to the order, the petitioner had gone to the Police Station but has treated shabbily. These allegations cannot be accepted on their face value. The fact that the petitioner has figured late in the investigation and is now sought to be questioned with respect to offences under Section 411 IPC, it would be in the fitness of things that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is allowed to the State. The Authorities shall ensure that the petitioner is provided all medical aid for the nature of ailments for which he is suffering and that he is not subjected to any harsh interrogation which may adversely affect his health. This petition is accordingly disposed of. September 27, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.