In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-35522 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:3.12.2010 Ranjit and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners pray for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 22.9.2010 for the offences under Section 382, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the complaint of Kamaljit Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that he deals in the sale of cattle feed of Markfed at Kapurthala and his younger brother Amarjit Singh is his partner in the said business. On 21.9.2010, the complainant by hiring a Canter had loaded 170 bags of cattle feed. He (complainant) along with his driver Jagtar Singh alias Lali delivered the bags to his customers at Phillaur and Nakodar and were returning back to Kapurthala. The time was about about 10.00/10.15 p.m. and they reached near the Electricity Office Nangal Naraingarh. At that time from their rear side, that is, from Nakodar one Tata 407 green colour vehicle overtook their vehicle. While overtaking Cr. Misc. No.M-35522 of 2010 [2] the occupants of the Tata 407 vehicle hit with a sword on the driver side of their vehicle. The occupants of the Tata 407 vehicle started abusing and they stopped their vehicle in front of the vehicle of the complainant. There were about 10-11 persons in the vehicle aged between 20 and 25 years. All were clean-shaven but the complainant could recognize them. They were armed with sharp edged weapons. They made the complainant get down from the vehicle and 5-6 persons took the driver to the side. The remaining persons encircled the complainant and caused injuries with their weapons on his back and ankles. They also took away two mobile phones from his pocket. One mobile was of Nokia 1209 make and the other Samsung 2312. They also took money from him and other documents including two ATM cards, driving licence and identity card. After that they ran away from the spot by taking their vehicle towards Kapurthala. The driver of the complainant got the complainant admitted at the Civil Hospital for treatment. It is alleged that the unidentified persons had stopped the vehicle of the complainant and caused injuries to him; besides, had taken his two mobile phones, money and other relevant documents including ATM cards, driving licence and identity card. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the name of the petitioners does not figure in the FIR and they are sought to be implicated only because Ranjit Singh (petitioner No.1) is the owner of the vehicle which the petitioner No.1 had given on lease to Jagtar Singh alias Lali son of Satpal Singh vide lease deed dated 29.12.2009, which was continued vide agreement dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure-P.3). There was a dispute between petitioner No.1 Ranjit and Jagtar Singh alias Lali with Cr. Misc. No.M-35522 of 2010 [3] regard to the vehicle that had been given on lease and, therefore, when Jagtar Singh alias Lali was arrested in the case he has named the petitioners as accused. It is submitted that Patras Nayyar (petitioner No.2) has been named as accused as he is a witness to the said lease agreement dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure-P.3) by which the vehicle was given on lease. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It may be noticed that in respect of the occurrence Jagtar Singh alias Lali was arrested and interrogated by the Police and during investigation, he named the petitioners with whose connivance the incident had occurred. This aspect is to be considered and gone into by the investigating authorities. The case is one where the accused are said to have come in a vehicle and stopped the complainant's vehicle on the road by banging a sword on the driver's side and hurling abuses. Thereafter, they committed robbery of the mobile phones, ATM cards, driving licence and identity card; besides, causing injuries to the complainant Kamaljit Singh. The complainant had taken a Canter vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10Y-9790 on hire for the sale of bags of cattle feed. The vehicle which Ranjit Singh (petitioner No.1) alleges that he gave to Jagtar Singh alias Lali driver is a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.PB-13E-5266. Therefore, the said vehicle which Jagtar Singh alias Lali was driving at the time of incident is not shown to be connected with the vehicle which the petitioners have alleged was given to Jagtar Singh alias Lali on hire. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to ascertain the actual facts and circumstances. In a case of pre-arrest bail the advantage of custodial Cr. Misc. No.M-35522 of 2010 [4] interrogation of eliciting necessary information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. December 3, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*