CRM Nos.31865 & 32911 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-31865 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 15, 2009 Ranjit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent AND CRM No. M-32911 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December , 2009 Vishwa Nath ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, and Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions for pre-arrest bail bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-31865 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-32911 of 2009, preferred by petitioners, namely, Ranjit Kumar and Vishwa Nath, registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 353, 120-B & 186 IPC at Police Ghanaur, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners have no role to play in the commission of crime. According to them, the petitioners were neither apprehended on the spot nor are CRM Nos.31865 & 32911 of 2009 2 they beneficiaries in any manner. They have further submitted that at best the case is of civil nature as allegation is of evasion of tax. Thus, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession prayed for in view the gravity of allegations. According to the counsel, their custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the modus operandi of commission of crime. Learned State counsel has further referred to statement of Suresh Kumar, driver of the vehicle who was apprehended on the spot, to contend that he had named both the petitioners in his statement and attributed specific role to them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the case diary. It is evident that allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner alongwith co-accused illegally transport the iron material to Delhi and Haryana by preparing false bills and billties. They take goods in a clandestine manner in order to avoid the tax barriers. On 13th October, 2009, three vehicles were signaled to stop. One of the drivers, namely, Suresh Kumar was apprehended on the spot while some co-accused managed to flee. In the statement of Suresh Kumar, which was recorded by the police, he stated that he had put his truck at the disposal of the petitioners Vishwa Nath and Ranjit Kumar alias Gogi Sood. According to him, they were instructed to take the iron scrap through unauthorized CRM Nos.31865 & 32911 of 2009 3 route to avoid payment of tax. He was even told that under no circumstances, the vehicle should be stopped at any place, even if had to run over any official of the tax department. He also stated that this was the usual procedure being adopted for taking the trucks clandestinely and the petitioners Ranjit Kumar and Vishwa Nath alias Gogi Sood used to accompany in a Scorpio vehicle to keep an overall supervision. Even on the date of occurrence, they were ahead of the truck in their Scorpio vehicle but fled from the spot after the truck was intercepted. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The allegations against the petitioners are serious. The statement of driver Suresh Kumar shows that it was not a singular incident, in which the petitioners tried to take an alternative route for the trucks to reach their destination without payment of tax. Under the circumstances, their custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. In the case titled as State rep. By CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Apex Court observed as under:- “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented 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 a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful 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 CRM Nos.31865 & 32911 of 2009 4 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it a fit case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The present petitions are devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed. Case diary be returned to the State counsel. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 15, 2009 'rajpal'