IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5462 of 2009 Date of decision: March 4, 2009 Satish and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of a secret information. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police along with his raiding party raided the hotel, ‘godown’ in the village and a person was found unloading the truck and another person was helping him. After seeing the raiding party, the person who was helping gave his name as Amit and he managed to escape. He has not been arrested by the police. The driver of the truck namely Surinder Yadav has been arrested and he has since got regular bail. According to the disclosure statement of Surinder Yadav - the driver of the truck , the petitioners had approached him and stated that when he brings the consignment of iron, he should unload some material at their godown and that their man ‘Amit’ would assist him. Surinder Yadav was apprehended while unloading the consignment which in terms of the bill (Annexure P1) was for M/s Gauri Shankar Steel Corp., Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the godown of the petitioners was locked and they were not present at the time when the material was Crl. Misc. No. M-5462 of 2009 [2] being unloaded. It is submitted that the ingredients of Sections 411 and 379 IPC are not attracted. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the consignment was for M/s Gauri Shankar Steel Corp., Delhi and yet it was being unloaded outside the godown of the petitioners. There was no occasion for Surinder Yadav – the driver of the truck to unload the goods outside the godown of the petitioners. It may also be noticed that the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 379, 411, 407 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, to unearth the conspiracy, if any, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail to the petitioners is made out. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 4, 2009 amit