Criminal Misc. No. M-14768 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-14768 of 2009 Date of Decision:02.07.2009 Jaspal Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Jaspal Singh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No.12 dated 14.2.2009 registered under Sections 193, 196, 199, 419, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. The facts in brief are that vide order dated 3.9.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.58192-M of 2004, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib was directed to conduct an inquiry and verify as to whether Shri D.N. Diwedi Works Executive of M/s Royal Darshan Gases Private Limited had in fact appeared as CW2 and also with regard to the fact whether Rajinder Kumar son of Shri M.L. Bajaj had appeared as CW3. In compliance therewith, the inquiry was conducted. On the basis of the inquiry report, the case under the afore-mentioned Sections was registered. Criminal Misc. No. M-14768 of 2009 -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urged that Mr. D.N. Diwedi was also examined during the inquiry and he denied that he never appeared in the complaint case, but he admitted his signatures on the complaint as well as the statement recorded during the proceedings of the complaint case. In the complaint case, the statements were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class which bears the signatures of Mr. D.N. Diwedi who has admitted that his signatures are not in dispute. This apparently goes to show that in fact he is not a truthful person and by conniving with the rival party, he is making false allegations. To overcome these submissions, Mr. Salana on behalf of the State argued that from the inquiry conducted, a prima-facie case was made out that some other person was produced in the Court by the complainant in connivance with his counsel in place of Rajinder Kumar son of Shri M.L. Bajaj. Thus, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. I have well considered the rival contentions. It is only in knowledge of the petitioner as to which persons were produced to impersonate as CW2 and CW3 in the Court. The only way to disinter or elicit this fact is the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-14768 of 2009 -3- 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 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 provisions of Section 438 ibid cannot be invoked where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. A Court considering an application under this Section must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duties and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 438 ibid, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition merits dismissal. Thus, this petition is dismissed. July 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No