Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.02.2011 Subash Chand .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.R.S. Modi, Advocate, with Mr.Ashu Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG, Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 16.10.2010 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the statement of Kirna Devi regarding ill-treatment to her daughter-Preeti; besides, kicking her in the stomach. The complainant's daughter Preeti is married to Pawan Kumar son of the petitioner-Subash Chand of Bhadson. The marriage was solemnized about a year earlier to the registration of FIR. After some time, the daughter of the complainant was beaten and a demand for dowry was raised from her. About 2½ months earlier to the registration of the FIR, it is alleged that Pawan Kumar (husband of Preeti) had been hidden in some unknown place or his father-Subash Chand (petitioner) or his mother-Sashi Bala had killed him. The daughter of the complainant had given a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, which had been referred to the Women Cell. On 16.10.2010, the Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 ::2:: complainant side in that regard had come to the Women Cell and Subash Chand (petitioner), Sashi Bala, Raju, Pilla, Rinku, Rajni, Saroj had started beating the complainant-Kirna Devi and her daughter-Preeti. They saved themselves by running from there. Had the daughter of the complainant not run away, then some harm would have come to the child that she was carrying. Therefore, she was appearing before the Senior Superintendent of police for justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the son of the petitioner namely Pawan Kumar is missing since 03.08.2010 and in this regard, the petitioner himself had got recorded DDR No.13 dated 03.08.2010 at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. It is submitted that it is much later i.e. on 16.10.2010 that the present FIR has been registered on false and fake allegations. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the interrogation of the petitioner is required as Pawan Kumar son of the petitioner is not being produced. The petitioner has also filed CRM No.M-5 of 2011 for a thorough investigation into the matter regarding missing of his son Pawan Kumar. It is submitted that to carry out effective investigations and to ascertain the whereabouts of Pawan Kumar, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that earlier also, Pawan Kumar had disappeared and was not traceable on 12.05.2010. The petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/- and the said amount was paid. Pawan Kumar then surfaced and he was hale and hearty. It is submitted that there was exchange of phone calls between the petitioner and his son Pawan Kumar. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that Subash Chand (petitioner) has lodged DDR No.13 Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 ::3:: dated 03.08.2010 at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala regarding his son being not traceable. It is alleged by Subash Chand (petitioner) in the said DDR that he along with others came to the Police Station and informed that he is doing the work of repairing old mobile phones. He has two daughters and one son and all the three children were married. Subash Chand (informant of DDR No.13 dated 03.08.2010) and his son Pawan Kumar and daughter-in-law Preeti were residing together in the house. The marriage of Pawan Kumar was solemnized about 11 months earlier to the lodging of DDR No.13 dated 03.08.2010. Pawan Kumar had studied up to 8th Class and was running a shop for repairing old mobile phones at Patiala road Bhadson. He used to go from Patiala to Khanna to procure goods for repairing mobile phones. On 01.08.2010 at about 1.30 a.m., Pawan Kumar left the house after taking his luggage by informing his wife-Preeti and his father-Subash Chand (petitioner) that he was going to purchase goods for the repair of mobile phones from Ludhiana. He left the house and while leaving, he took Rs.2000/- from Subash Chand (petitioner). Pawan Kumar already had Rs.15000/- with him. Pawan Kumar went to Ludhiana to buy goods for repairing mobile phones. Subash Chand at about 12.20 p.m. called his son Pawan Kumar twice from his mobile number to know regarding the whereabouts of his son but he did not reply. Then Pawan Kumar called Subash Chand (petitioner) at 12.25 p.m. on his mobile phone. On receiving the telephone, Pawan Kumar said that he is being followed by five persons. Thereafter, the phone was disconnected. Subash Chand (petitioner) made several calls to his son but his phone remained unanswered. Since 01.08.2010, the phone of the son (Pawan Kumar) was switched of and his son had not returned since then. It is alleged that Pawan Kumar went to Ludhiana from the house of Subhash Chand to purchase goods for repairing mobile phones and was Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 ::4:: missing since 01.08.2010. His (Pawan Kumar's) description has been mentioned. The police had carried out some investigations. The mobile record of Pawan Kumar has been obtained. The son of the petitioner namely Pawan Kumar was having Mobile No.9781171234. The said mobile was operational on 31.07.2010, 01.08.2010 to 04.08.2010, i.e., the period of which details of calls have been obtained/mentioned. The phone was, therefore, in operation till 04.08.2010. The petitioner is said to have hidden his son. According to the learned counsel for the State, his custodial interrogation is necessary to effectively carry out the investigations. The complainant has alleged that on an earlier occasion also, Pawan Kumar had been missing and on payment of Rs.50,000/- by the complainant he had surfaced. A Panchayati compromise dated 23.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the earlier dispute was recorded wherein the petitioner side, it is stated, would not harass Preeti. It may be noticed that the matter regarding the disappearance of Pawan Kumar is required to be investigated and enquired into. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the Investigating Authorities carry out effective investigations in the case, so that the entire facts and circumstances are be brought out. Accordingly, it would be inexpedient to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Subash Chand. It is to be kept in mind that in case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more information and useful material is to be kept in view; besides, the exercise of the power to grant the concession of pre- arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in nature. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the Crl. Misc. No.M-33451 of 2010 ::5:: present petition. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) February 15, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet