Criminal Misc. No. M-7617 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7617 of 2011 Date of decision : 16.03.2011 Gurdeep Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 19 dated 11.02.2011 under Sections 447, 379 & 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Only a person with the name of Dr. Deepak @ Billa was mentioned in the FIR and the investigating agency is trying to falsely implicate the petitioner by connecting him with the commission of crime on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to him, statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would have no evidentiary value and petitioner is thus entitled to pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He submits that name of the petitioner figured in the FIR. According Criminal Misc. No. M-7617 of 2011 2 to him, during investigation it has been found that Dr. Deepak @ Billa who has been named in the FIR was in fact the petitioner himself. He submits that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency, it is clear that it is the petitioner who was indulging in the commission of alleged crime. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR was lodged on the statement of Rajinder Kumar who stated that he along with nephew Rohit went to the plot in question on 11.02.2011. There they saw Dr. Deepak @ Billa along with co-accused digging earth for laying foundation in the plot and when they tried to stop the accused they threatened him and his nephew. He also alleged that forged documents may have been prepared regarding the plot. In view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the stand of the investigating agency that Dr. Deepak @ Billa referred to in the FIR is in fact the petitioner himself, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. As regards the evidentiary value of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. this argument can be raised at the appropriate stage. At the stage of consideration of pre-arrest bail, the facts mentioned in the FIR and prima facie conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency on the basis of statements recorded, cannot be said to be irrelevant. In view of above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 16, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE