Crl. Misc. No. M-11360 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. M-11360 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Vishwa Nath ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 353, 186 IPC, at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala, vide FIR No.72 dated 13th October, 2009. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused used to transport iron material to Delhi and Haryana by preparing false bills and billties in order to avoid excise duty. The petitioner earlier preferred a pre-arrest bail petition before this court, which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 15th December, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is totally innocent and thus, entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. This apart, there is no evidence available against him and thus, there is no ground for the investigating agency to arrest the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-11360 of 2010 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that in the earlier bail application, preferred by him (Crl. Misc. No. M-32911 of 2009), it was noticed that there were serious allegations against the petitioner. Suresh Kumar, driver of one of the vehicles, who was apprehended on the spot, had stated that they had been instructed to take the iron scrap through unauthorized route to its destination. He had also stated before the police that he had been instructed not to stop the vehicle, even if it run over any official of the tax department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show any fresh ground or change in circumstance for consideration of the present petition for pre-arrest bail preferred by the petitioner nor he has been able to show how this second petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable. On the other hand, it appears that FIR was registered on 13th October, 2009 and the petitioner has merely delayed the investigation by evading the process of law. I am, thus, of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The present petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 26.4.2010 'rajpal'