In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-22957 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:11.8.2010 Tek Chand .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, 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 for the offences under Sections 379, 411, 188 and 120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurgaon. The FIR in the case has been registered on the memo sent by Ram Kishan, ASI who along with other Police officials was present at Bus Stand Tikkli. A secret information was received there that Daya Nand at the behest of his owner was filling his dumper vehicle with stones by stealing them from the hills of Tikkli. On believing the information to be correct the place given by the secret informer was raided and two persons were found filling stones in their dumper vehicle. On seeing the Police party, one person succeeded in fleeing from the spot and the other person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Daya Nand son of Narain Singh resident of Village Garatpur Bas and the person who fled from the spot it was informed was Tek Chand (petitioner). The dumper was checked and it Cr. Misc. No.M-22957 of 2010 was found to contain 50/60 feet of stones. The same were taken in Police possession vide recovery memo along with the dumper. The accused Daya Nand had committed theft of the stones in connivance with the owner of the dumper (Tek Chand) (petitioner) whereas there has been a ban on mining in Haryana as per the order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner is the owner of the dumper and he along with his driver had been stealing stones after mining the quarry for which ban has been imposed by the Supreme Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner would, therefore, be required to ascertain whether he has indulged in similar other activities and also whether there are others who are indulging in the said activities. 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 accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Police within three days of the receipt of copy of this order, his application for regular bail shall be considered soon thereafter, after the expiry of Police remand, if any, and preferably within three days. August 11, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*