IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 28626 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.9.2010 Deepak Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 379/411 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Beenu Malhotra who has alleged that on 27.4.2009 at 10.00 p.m. she had gone with her family for attending a marriage programme at Gill Farm, G.T. Road, Daburji. She parked her cherry colour Alto car in the parking of the main gate of Gill Farm. After the marriage programme was over when the complainant came along with her family to get the car, she found that her car had been taken away by some unidentified person. Despite search, the car could not be traced. Apart from Insurance and stereo system, other important documents were lying in the car. Crl. Misc. No. M- 28626 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Besides, an untraced report was filed. Thereafter, on the basis of secret information, the police arrested one Vikas Sharma from whom the car of the complainant Beenu Malhotra was recovered. The said Vikas Sharma has named the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner would join the investigation and co-operate with the investigation. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same. The fact that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR is inconsequential as the case relates to one of theft of car and the person whose car is stolen would not be in a position to identify and name the accused in the FIR that is to be investigated and ascertained by the Police. The Police had filed an untraced report in the case on 3.3.2010. Thereafter, on 21.8.2010 on the basis of secret information, one Vikas Sharma was named as an accused in the case. The said Vikas Sharma was arrested on 30.8.2010 and the Alto car was recovered from him. The said Vikas Sharma in his disclosure statement named the petitioner alleging that the documents of the car were lying with him. Therefore, the custody of the petitioner would be required to ascertain and recover the documents of the car which were in the car of the complainant Beenu Malhotra when it was stolen. Besides, it is also to be ascertained whether the petitioner has been involved in other cases of similar nature. For the said Crl. Misc. No. M- 28626 of 2010 [3] purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. It is well-known that in a case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of powers to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case petitioner surrenders before the police within two days from the receipt of copy of this order, his application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court within next two days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 28, 2010 amit