IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl.Misc.No.M-1826 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 06, 2011 Vikesh Kumar …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent 2. Crl.Misc.No.M-4810 of 2010 Pushpinder Pal …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-1826/2010 Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-4810/2010 Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This order will dispose of above-mentioned two petitions preferred under section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under section 409 IPC vide FIR No.20 dated 7.1.2010 at police station Ratia, District Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the file of case titled as ‘State vs. Chuni Lal’ went missing from the court and the petitioners are being made scapegoats in the matter. According to learned counsel, Crl.Misc.Nos.M-1826 & M-4810 of 2010 - 2 - petitioners had no role to play in the disappearance of the file and thus, they are entitled to pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that FSL report dated 7.3.2011 has been received by the investigating agency. According to him, as per opinion given in the said report, the original writing in the register is made by Pushpinder Pal and there is some overwriting therein. He submits that only the petitioners can disclose about the person who has done the overwriting. According to learned State counsel, both the petitioners are passing on blame to each other and none of them is co- operating with the investigating agency. He has referred to reply by way of affidavit of Dy. Superintendent of Police (City), Fatehabad (para-5 thereof) to contend that petitioners joined investigation on various dates, but only shifted burden to each other. He submits that under the circumstances custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The judicial file of case arising out of FIR No.408 dated 30.8.2003, under section 5,9-B of Explosive Act, police station Ratia, titled as ‘State vs. Chuni Lal’ went missing. The case was decided on 11.4.2008 by SDJM, Ratia. Due to demise of the Presiding Officer Ajay Aggarwal, the contents of the order could not be ascertained. According to learned State counsel, it was shown that the accused had been acquitted. According to him, the entire issue came to notice only when an Crl.Misc.Nos.M-1826 & M-4810 of 2010 - 3 - application was received from the State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula on 18.9.2009 wherein copy of the judgment was sought. Resultantly, the instant case was lodged on a complaint submitted by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. A request was made in the complaint for registration of criminal case as loss of file was never reported by the petitioners. In view of nature of allegations contained in the FIR, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. April 06, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE Crl.Misc.Nos.M-1826 & M-4810 of 2010 - 4 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-4810 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 06, 2011 Pushpinder Pal …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) For orders, seek Crl.Misc.No.M-1826 of 2010 titled as Vikesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana. April 06, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE