IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-24238 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2011 Amandeep Kumar ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate with Mr.R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner Dr.U.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab Mr.P.S. Guliani, Advocate for the complainant RAJAN GUPTA, J. This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 406/420/506 IPC vide FIR No.32 dated 1.8.2010 at police Station Badali Alla Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in another case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.43 dated 15.7.2010, he has been granted the concession of interim bail. According to him, the petitioner is being implicated in a false case by the police and thus, he deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. He submits that entire story against him has been fabricated by the police. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that during investigation it has come to light that petitioner alongwith CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-24238 of 2010 - 2 – his associates has been working as middlemen between police and public and receiving illegal gratification for getting certain police related works done. According to him, to some the petitioner had been posing as an IPS officer and to others he was posing as a relative of a senior IPS officer in order to carry out nefarious activities. The mobile number (9988100001) was actually registered in the name of one Darbara Singh, Shop No.199, Sector 37, Chandigarh. Learned State counsel submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the IG, Bathinda Zone, regarding the activities of the petitioner and it was found that he was acting as a tout of certain police officers. The petitioner had even been managing the transfers and postings of police officials by accepting money in district Ferozepur. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel has referred to an affidavit of Shri Rohit Choudhary, Inspector General of Police, Bathinda Zone, Bathinda, filed in another case (Crl.Misc.No.M-21724 of 2010). Heard. Allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint filed by one Swaran Singh is that he cheated innocent boys of a sum of Rs.25 lacs. It was alleged that petitioner used to visit the dairy of one Daljit Singh Badali who was known to complainant. Petitioner proclaimed that employment process had begun in the police department and he could help them in getting job by wielding influence of his father who was DIG and also of one M.P. The petitioner suggested to keep ready five persons for employment on payment of Rs.10 lac per candidate. Thereafter, complainant alongwith four other persons offered themselves for employment. Devinder CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-24238 of 2010 - 3 – Singh also arranged five candidates. Petitioner took Rs.5 lac from each candidate. The money was allegedly handed over in the house of the complainant in the presence of Tejinder Singh, Satnam Singh, Nazar Singh, Harpreet Singh and Ram Dev. Thereafter, whenever complainant and other candidates would enquire about their employment, petitioner would put off the matter on one pretext or the other. When complainant and others put pressure to recover their money, the petitioner started extending threats. It is apparent that allegations against the petitioner are serious. This apart, in view of the clear stand of the State before this court that petitioner is indulging in number of nefarious activities and acting as a middleman between the police and the public, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to concession of pre- arrest bail. There are allegations that petitioner has been receiving illegal gratification for getting police related works done from both public and police officials. I, thus, feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. In case the petitioner is armed with a protective order, he is not likely to co-operate with the investigating agency. The apex court in the judgment reported as State rep. by CBI vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, has observed as under:- “……custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than 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 suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-24238 of 2010 - 4 – 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.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the nature of allegations against the petitioner and observations of the apex court in Anil Sharma’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. January 14, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE