In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-28751 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:29.9.2010 Raj Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 3.8.2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of a secret information. ASI Lakhbir Singh of Economic Offences Wing, Jalandhar along with SI Sodhi Ram and two Head Constables were present at Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar in connection with patrol duty. A secret information was received that Raj Kumar Sharma (petitioner) and Rahul Babbar have got their office by the name of the Flight Linker near Friends Cinema. They prepare false documents such as birth certificates, school certificates, false bank account statements, bank certificates and use these false documents for various purposes. They charge heavy amounts from innocent persons for getting them passport and sending them abroad. In case a raid was Cr. Misc. No.M-28751 of 2010 [2] conducted at the shop-cum-office then various documents prepared by them could be recovered. The information appeared to be reliable which constitute a prima facie offence. Accordingly, a memo was sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case is based on secret information and there is no complainant. It is submitted that the business rivals of the petitioner are inimical to the petitioner and they have got a false raid conducted. On the date of the occurrence i.e. 3.8.2010, the petitioner had gone to Delhi by Shatabadi Express. On reaching Delhi, he stayed in White Empire Guest House on payment of necessary charges. It is submitted that the other accused resides in his neighbour. He wanted that the petitioner should keep him in his office even though he was not enjoying good reputation. The petitioner, therefore, refused to keep him in his office. It is submitted that in respect of the recovery of any document from Rahul Babbar the petitioner has no concern. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. A reading of the order dated 14.8.2010 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while declining the bail to the petitioner shows that in the raid that was conducted by the Police, various documents were taken in possession including ration cards, bank certificates etc. These are alleged to have been falsely prepared. A copy of blank birth certificate was also recovered which had the signatures and seal of the Municipal Corporation along with the date. This according to the learned Sessions Judge supported the allegations of the prosecution that the accused prepared Cr. Misc. No.M-28751 of 2010 [3] forged documents and then send innocent persons abroad on the basis of forged documents. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to ascertain his involvement in the preparation of forged and fake documents. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful 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 circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the investigating authorities and the learned trial Court as the case may be shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as produced before it. September 29, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*