Crl. Misc No. M-20082 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-20082 of 2009 Date of decision : 31.07.2009 Rachhpal Singh and Others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 457/380 IPC at police station Sadar Amritsar vide FIR No. 255 dated 17.06.2009. The occurrence relates to intervening night of 15-16 June 2009, when the petitioners are stated to have entered the house of the complainant alongwith 10/12 persons at about 12.30 a.m. and stolen seven buffalos, one large falcon (katta), one female offspring of buffalos (Katti), some cash, some other articles and a motorcycle. Thus, the present case for lurking, house tress-pass at night and also committing theft was registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is delay of almost forty hours in lodging the FIR and the petitioners had joined the investigation even during the pendency of the pre-arrest bail Crl. Misc No. M-20082 of 2009 2 application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. According to the counsel, the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation, therefore, they are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He has submitted that though the petitioners had joined the investigation during the pendency of the pre-arrest bail application pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar but they did not cooperate with the investigating agency in any manner. Consequently, recoveries could not be effected from them. I have heard counsel for the parties, and perused the record annexed with the petition. I am of the considered view that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They are alleged to have tress- passed into the house of the complainant at midnight and committed theft. The investigating agency has alleged that the petitioner have failed to cooperate with the investigation. It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. I thus, do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is hereby, dismissed. 31.07.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE