In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-35212 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:18.8.2010 Dheeraj and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners Dheeraj and Raju sons of Subhash Mittal seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`Act' – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Anil Bawa. It is alleged that on 8.9.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. one JCB struck against the chowk of Baba Saheb. On account of the striking of the JCB, the platform (Chabutra) of the statute of Baba Saheb Ambedkar got damaged. The members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were agitating at Ambedkar Chowk, Ballabgarh. In the meanwhile, some shopkeepers of the bazar misbehaved with the members of the Scheduled Cr. Misc. No.M-35212 of 2009 [2] Castes and Scheduled Tribes by using offending words. In this regard, the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes went to the office of ACP, Ballabgarh and disclosed all facts about the misbehaviour of the shopkeepers. The ACP gave the complainant appointment for 9.9.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. and when the complainant were leaving the office of ACP the accused came to know of the complaint made against them, then on the way the accused persons made mobile calls on the mobile number of the complainant at 3.05 p.m. The calls were made from mobile No.9250184266. The name of the person who was calling was disclosed as Dheeraj (petitioner No.1). He used the offending words against the caste of the complainant. Thereafter, Raju-brother of petitioner No.1 snatched the mobile phone and uttered further offending words. The complainant knew the above said persons since long. There was danger to the life of the complainant and members of the family and also the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is alleged that the accused had misbehaved with the complainant. On 14.12.2009, on the basis of contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, interim bail was granted to the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the State has submitted that even though the petitioners have joined the investigation they have not cooperated with the investigation and they are not getting mobile phone recovered from which the calls were made. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the mobile No.9250184266 does not belong to the petitioners and it belongs to one Dev Dutt. Cr. Misc. No.M-35212 of 2009 [3] Learned counsel for the State has submitted that said Dev Dutt has made a statement before the Police that his ID proof, photo and purse containing Rs.170/- were lost in the year 2007. It is submitted that the said phone is being used by the petitioners. A list of call details for the period from 1.9.2009 to 15.9.2009 has been submitted on the basis of which it is submitted that more than 151 calls were made from the said phone 9250184266 to various numbers from their residence and their other family members. Therefore, it is submitted that the said mobile phone is used by the petitioners only and in order to carry out effective investigation, their custody is necessary. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there are six cases registered against the petitioners for the offences under the Copy Rights Act, Sections 420, 292 and 500 IPC, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and other offences. It is submitted that the complainant has also submitted an application to the Chief Minister, Haryana for protection of his life and family members from the petitioners. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required for the purposes of eliciting more and useful information. The mobile phone No.9250184266 is shown to have been used by the petitioners in making telephone calls to the complainant. The said number has been used by the petitioners for making calls from their residence and other family members. However, despite the petitioners being granted time to join the investigation and get the recovery effected, they have not cooperated with the investigation. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is Cr. Misc. No.M-35212 of 2009 [4] made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. August 18, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*