`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 9807 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.5.2009 Udham Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr SS Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana. Mr Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act (Act – for short). The FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Vikas Kamboj. He was married to Arti on 15.2.2009. The wife of the complainant namely Arti, it is stated, has relations with the petitioner – Udham Singh. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant – Vikas Kamboj found a contraband substance in his car and he produced the same before the Police. It was submitted that some unknown person with an intention to entangle him (Vikas Kamboj – complainant) and due to enmity, has put the contraband in his car. Two days later, the complainant made a statement that the petitioner was seen in the area of village Barsana where the complainant had left the car to attend a marriage ceremony. Arti later on 19.3.2009 filed a complaint (P1) on the basis of which FIR 124 for the Cr Misc M- 9807 of 2009 2 offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC has been registered against the complainant. The petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 5.5.2009 which is to the effect that in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to bail as it was yet to be determined whether the petitioner is actually involved in the occurrence or whether he is sought to be framed at the instance of Vikas Kamboj on account of matrimonial dispute with his wife – Arti.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the case and there is no question of his putting any contraband in the car of Vikas Kamboj. It is submitted that he is sought to be falsely implicated in the case. In response, learned counsel for the state and the complainant submit that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation of the case. It is submitted that on 20.2.2009 on which date the FIR under Section 18 of the Act was registered, the petitioner had made 26 calls from his mobile phone to one Surinder Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed as to who the said Surinder Singh is and, therefore, his custodial interrogation would be necessary. It is also submitted that the learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal had dismissed the application under Section 438 CrPC with the observation that the conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating with the investigating agency was indicative of the fact that he is involved in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution merely wants the petitioner to admit his guilt and unless he admits his guilt, it would continue to take the stand that he is not cooperating. Cr Misc M- 9807 of 2009 3 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the FIR in the case has been registered on 20.2.2009 for the offence under Section 18 of the Act. According to the allegations of the complainant – Vikas Kamboj, somebody had kept the contraband in his car on 20.2.2009. The marriage between Vikas Kamboj and Arti was solemnized 5 days earlier on 15.2.2009. The petitioner is stated to be having relations with said Arti – wife of the complainant. After the registration of the FIR, Arti – wife of the complainant had got registered FIR on 19.3.2009 (P1) against the petitioner and his other relations for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC. The fact that 26 calls were made from the mobile phone of the petitioner to one Surinder Singh and as to who the said Surinder Singh is, would require further investigation in the case so as to unearth the entire truth. In a case of pre-arrest bail, 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. The learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal in his order dated 31.3.2009 while declining the pre- arrest bail to the petitioner has also observed that the conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating with the investigating agency was indicative of the fact that he was involved in the commission of the offence. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed. 27.5.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge