CRM No. M-23158 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23158 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.11.2009 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 201 IPC at Police Station G.R.P. Jind, District Jind, vide FIR No.3 dated 9th January, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is being implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. The incident took place12th October, 2006 and FIR has been registered more than two years thereafter. According to the counsel, no role is ascribed to the petitioner in the entire occurrence. Learned counsel for the State (on the instructions from Inspector Raj Singh, who is present in court), on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner is a relative of the deceased whose dead body was lying in the same police station where the petitioner was posted. However, the petitioner did not inform the family of the deceased. Information was sent only after cremation of the dead-body. According CRM No. M-23158 of 2009 2 to the counsel, there are circumstances to suggest that petitioner was involved in the crime. Learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner was summoned by the Inspector General of Police for answering certain questions but he refused to turn up. On the other hand, he proceeded on leave. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegations in the FIR pertain to death of son of the complainant. The complainant has alleged in the FIR that in fact, his son was murdered and later on his body was placed on the railway track. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioner though knew that the body was of deceased Bhanu Parkash, but he did not divulge this information to him on the night of 12th October, 2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The allegations in the FIR are serious and custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of taking the investigation to its logical end. I find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 03, 2009 'rajpal'