IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-34280 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Jagjit Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 30.8.2009 for the offences under Sections 379, 411, 412, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo sent by Randhir Singh ASI, CIA, Barnala. The said ASI Randhir Singh along with other police officials were present in connection with patrolling at Courts Chowk, Barnala in a canter vehicle. An information was received that Harvinder Singh (Vicky) son of Lakhbir Singh, Manjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, Harinder Singh Sandhu, car seller and Harpal Singh @ Pal Singh son of Parkash Chand have formed a group (giroh) and committed forgery with innocent persons by giving them temptation to purchase vehicles at cheap rates. It was informed that this group got sold stolen and CRM No. M-34280 of 2009 [2] financed cars by preparing forged documents. The members of the group were seen roaming in a black colour Indigo car No.HP-40B-1799 and a silver colour Santro car. The information was found credible and the offences against the above mentioned persons were found to be made out. Therefore, memo was being sent against the aforesaid persons for registration of FIR through Constable Davinder Singh. The FIR number was asked to be informed after registration. ASI Randhir Singh along with his police party proceeded to search for the aforesaid accused persons at Patti Road city Barnala. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have been falsely implicated and they are not named in the FIR. Besides, it is submitted in consequence of the interim bail granted on 4.12.2009, the petitioners have joined the investigation. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been named as accused on the statements of the persons who have been apprehended. A references has been made to the statement of Anil Singla recorded under Section 161 CrPC who has mentioned the involvement of the present petitioners. It is submitted that the role of the present petitioners is to be ascertained with regard to the preparation of false registration copies and cars that have been got sold by them. It is also submitted that though the petitioners have been joining the investigation, however, they have not been co-operating inasmuch as they are not producing the sale purchase register and that their custodial interrogation is required. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2009. They were to cooperate with the investigating authorities. On CRM No. M-34280 of 2009 [3] 20.1.2010, learned State counsel submitted that sale purchase register and other documents were still to be recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to join the investigation and continue to do so thereafter as and when called. The case was then taken up on 26.3.2010 on which date again learned State counsel submitted that the sale purchase register and other documents were still to be recovered. The petitioners were once again asked to join the investigation. The case was again taken up on 4.5.2010 and it was adjourned to 17.5.2010 to enable the petitioners to join the investigation. On 17.5.2010, the case had been adjourned for today. However, according to learned State counsel, the petitioners have not been co-operating. The case is of theft of cars and the petitioners have been named as accused on the basis of the statement of Anil Singla. The documents are to be recovered from the petitioners and other investigations are to be conducted for which their custodial interrogation is necessary. It is well-known that considerations governing the Court’s decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC are materially different from that of seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter, seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In 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 powers to grant pre-arrest bail in somewhat extraordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out at this stage and the Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 23, 2010 amit