1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M. P(M) No. 1298 of 2008. Date of decision: 24-12-2008. Mohan Lal. … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suridner Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. SURINDR SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has applied for the pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 4 of 2008 registered on 12-11-2008 in Anti Corruption State Vigilance Bureau at Una under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has been running a CT Scan Diagnostic and Research Centre at Amb Road in Una and some of his degrees, like, M.D (AIIMS), D.M. (Card), DNB (Card) etc were fake and bogus and thereby cheated and he fooled the Public for more clientage. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau conducted the preliminary inquiry. During the inquiry, AMC 2 Hospital and Diagnostic Centre was found in the name of the petitioner and the Ultra Sound clinic was registered in the name of his doctor wife. The petitioner produced the photo copies and some attested copies of his degrees before the aforesaid police officer which were got verified from the Principal, Sardar Patel Medical College, Rajasthan, the Registrar AIIMS New Delhi, Principal Swai Man Singh Medical College Jaipur from where these were alleged to have been issued. Except the MBBS degree of the petitioner, others were found fake. Thus, the petitioner provided false information to the Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the above report, F.I.R. was registered and the statement of the Principal, who is alleged to have attested the photo copies of the degrees was recorded. He has made the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. to the Police that he attested the copies on seeing the original degrees produced by the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed the present bail petition wherein he was granted the interim bail and was directed to join the investigation. He failed to produce the alleged originals which were produced which were shown to the Principal at the time of attestation. His bail has been objected to by the State on the ground that the fake degrees prepared by the petitioner are yet to be recovered and the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation of this case, to take it to the logical end. 3 The circumstances and record show that by getting the present bail, the petitioner knows that he is protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is being interrogated. Twice he was given chance to produce the said originals but he failed to do so. Therefore, his custodial interrogation would be more useful to effect the recovery and elicit the information and material as to who others are involved in it. In State-v- Anil Sharma, (1997) 7, SCC 187, the Apex Court has held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case like the present one, effective interrogation of the petitioner would be of a tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and material which would have been concealed. Otherwise, the interrogation of the petitioner would be reduced to a mere ritual. Taking a cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Abdul Hamit Ansari and others –v- State of Maharashtra: 2000 SCC (Cri.) 1505, we can fix the period for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the order granting interim bail passed on 11-12-2008 is hereby vacated and it is ordered that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith, the investigating officer shall complete the interrogation within three days from the date and time of his surrender and recovering of any material/fact, the petitioner 4 shall be released on his furnishing bonds in the sum of rupees 10,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer subject to the conditions that : (a) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; (b) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make ay inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police officer; (c) the petitioner shall be present in the court as and when required to do so. Needless to say that if the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the liberty of the bail shall be cancelled. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to bear any reflection on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti to the parties, on usual terms. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 24, 2008. (bm) 5