In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-6710 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:15.3.2011 Jaswant Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-7308 of 2011 ..... Surjit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta and Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-6710 of 2011 filed by Jaswant Singh and his son Resham Singh and Criminal Misc. No.M-7308 of 2011 filed by Surjit Singh, Field Officer of the complainant- Punjab & Sind Bank. The respective petitioners in the two petitions seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 8.2.2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B and 409 IPC. Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6710 of 2011 etc. [2] The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Punjab & Sind Bank. It is alleged that Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-6710 of 2011) were granted cash credit limit of `1,40,000/- on 14.8.2007 against mortgage of land measuring 17 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in Village Jawahar Singh Wala. Aforesaid land was mortgaged vide registered deed No.1084 dated 2.8.2007 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaitu. Report of the mortgage was entered in the Roznamcha of the Revenue Patwari at serial No.658 dated 3.8.2007. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh deposited `1,44,900/- on 11.11.2008 and re-availed cash credit limit on 17.11.2008. They deposited `5,000/- on 2.5.2009 in their cash credit account with their own hands, thereby acknowledged and confirmed their liability. The petitioners Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh were asked to liquidate their cash credit limit account by repaying the outstanding amount then Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh submitted a letter dated 26.4.2010 which was signed by Surjit Singh, Field Officer (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7308 of 2011). The said amount has not been credited in the account of Punjab and Sind Bank. Therefore, it is alleged that a fraud has been committed. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitiones Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh has submitted that the amount of `1,50,000/- was given to Surjit Singh, Field Officer (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.7308 of 2011) and it was for him to deposit the amount. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner-Surjit Singh has submitted that in respect of similar allegations the petitioner was arrested in FIR No.80 dated 5.5.2009 registered at Police Station Kotkapura, District Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6710 of 2011 etc. [3] Faridkot for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B and 109 IPC. Therefore, he is not liable to be again arrested as whatever was to be inquired into was liable to be inquired into by the prosecution in the said case. It is submitted that the petitioner is being subjected to double jeopardy. In response, Mr. T.S. Salana, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required as the entire facts and circumstances are to be gone into and considered. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh have embezzled `1,40,000/- of the complainant Punjab & Sind Bank. The amount was availed by them on the basis of misrepresentation that they were owners of land measuring 17 Kanals 2 Marlas in Village Jawahar Singh Wala. According to the petitioners Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh they had paid an amount of `1,40,000/- to Surjit Singh, Field Officer (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7308 of 2011). The amount was paid in the month of September 2008. However, nothing has been shown as regards the source of the said amount from which the amount was taken. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 4.3.2011, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh had prayed for time to show the source of the amount and also the certificate regarding deposit of the said amount. Learned counsel has submitted that the amount was deposited after lease money has been received. However, it is submitted that no document of lease was recorded. It may be noticed that there is Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6710 of 2011 etc. [4] nothing on record to show that the petitioners are owners of any property for which some lease money has been given to them. Therefore, their custodial interrogation would be necessary. Insofar as Surjit Singh, Field Officer-petitioner is concerned, it may be noticed that the amount according to the petitioners Jaswant Singh and Resham Singh was paid to him. However, he has not deposited the amount in the accounts of the Punjab & Sind Bank. Another case FIR No.80 dated 5.5.2009 stands registered at Police Station Kotkapura. The question of double jeopardy is not to be considered in the proceedings for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same, if available, would be considered by the Court at the appropriate stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required by the prosecution so as to ascertain and recover the amount of `1,40,000/-. The 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 view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. March 15 , 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*