Criminal Misc. No. M-4060 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-4060 of 2009 Date of Decision:2.03.2009 Sitar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Sitar under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.10 dated 16.1.2009 registered under Sections 408/403/323/427/120-B of IPC at Police Station Sadar Rajpura. The facts in brief are that the complainant Harmeet Singh had taken the contract for transportation of molasses (Sheera) from Sugar Mill Naraingarh to Hari Om Industries, Moga. He used to send the drivers to transport the same to the aforesaid industry after getting the trucks loaded in his own supervision. He learnt from the aforesaid industry that low standard of quality and quantity of molasses is being received, whereafter he started keeping watch on his truck drivers. On 15.1.2009, at about 6/6:15 P.M, he got loaded five tricks with molasses for transporting the same from Criminal Misc. No. M-4060 of 2009 -2- Naraingarh factory to the aforesaid industry. He along with Sukhwinder Singh followed these trucks in his own car bearing registration No.HR-02- N-0091 Make Ford. Around 8:30/9:00 P.M, truck/ tanker No.HR-58-2961 driven by Sitar (referring to the petitioner), truck No.HR58-7411 driven by Gurcharan Singh alias Ladda and truck bearing registration No.RJ-31G- 4702 driven by Bakhsish Singh stopped their trucks at Rajdeep Dhaba at Village Gandian. He and Sukhwinder saw from far that drivers, Davinder Singh owner of Rajdeep Dhaba and Bhinda Singh @ Doctor of Rajpura started taking out molasses from the tankers and mixing water in the same. He and Sukhwinder Singh saw this incident in the light installed at the Dhaba. He went to the said Dhaba in his car and asked the drivers about the theft of molasses. Aforesaid Davinder Singh and Bhinda Singh grappled with him (Harmeet Singh) and assaulted him with khoncha (iron stick, which is used for stirring vegetables while cooking) and caused injuries on his left leg, left knee and left shoulder. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection. It is quite plain and patent from the allegations in the FIR that the petitioner along with others had been indulging in pilferage of molasses in the stated manner. It can only be enquired on custodial interrogation as to since when they have been indulging in this activity and how much molasses has been pilfered away and to whom the same has been sold. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than Criminal Misc. No. M-4060 of 2009 -3- questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” The Court considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duty and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Thus, taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this petition merit dismissal. Ordered accordingly. March 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No