Crl. Misc. No. M-12042 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12042 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.8.2010 Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 448, 380, 511, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, vide FIR No.81 dated 25th February, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, from the FIR, no role can be attributed to the petitioner and thus, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from Head Constable Iqbal Mohammad, who is present in court) has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that pursuant to ad-interim Crl. Misc. No. M-12042 of 2010 2 pre-arrest bail granted by this court, the petitioner appeared before the investigating agency but failed to cooperate. He submits that all the household articles, which are mentioned in the FIR, are yet to be recovered from him. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner is involved in another case of forgery in District Ropar. This apart, he submits that the petitioner is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the FIR shows that the complaint was lodged by Manjit Singh stating therein that he was out of station regarding some business. When he returned back on 24th February, 2010, he found that locks of both of his houses were broken and doors were open. All the articles such as refrigerator, T.V., winter and summer bedding, ledger books, cash books, vouchers, bill books, gold ornaments etc. had been stolen. Later about 8-10 persons came to their house armed with various weapons and threatened that their household articles had already been taken and they would also be dispossessed of the house. The petitioner was specifically named by the complainant in the FIR. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the circumstances of the case and the stand of the investigating agency, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the Crl. Misc. No. M-12042 of 2010 3 concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 16.8.2010 'rajpal'