Criminal Misc. No. M-30599 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30599 of 2010 Date of decision : 02.11.2010 Ranjit Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 353, 120-B & 186 IPC vide FIR No. 72 dated 13.10.2009. The allegation in the FIR is that petitioner along with co- accused illegally transports the iron material from Delhi to Haryana by preparing false bills and billties. It is alleged that goods are taken 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. The police later on recorded the statement of Suresh Kumar, who stated that he had put the truck at the disposal of one Vishwa Nath and Ranjit Kumar alias Gogi Sood (petitioner herein). He further stated that they were instructed to take unauthorized route to avoid payment Criminal Misc. No. M-30599 of 2010 2 of tax. Even he was told not to stop the truck under any circumstances, even if the same had to be run over any officials of the tax department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the pendency of case, the petitioner was declared innocent in a inquiry conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. According to him, challan was presented against co-accused but against the petitioner proceedings for declaring him proclaimed offender were initiated. He has emphasized that petitioner was neither owner of the truck nor of materials therein and thus he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. He has also submitted that after the trucks were apprehended they were later released on ‘superdari’ to the persons entitled to their possession. Learned State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner was named in the initial version i.e. the FIR. According to him, the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala exonerating the petitioner has not been accepted by the Director General of Police, Punjab and inquiry/investigation is still in progress. He submits that petitioner runs a transport company and there are serious allegations against him of adopting various means for evasion of tax legitimately due. He, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, who is present in court submits that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation in order to take the investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that petitioner had earlier preferred a pre-arrest bail application (CRM M-31865 of 2009) which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 15.12.2009. It has been brought to the notice of the court that against the said order Special Leave Petition ((Crl.) No. 146 of 2010) was Criminal Misc. No. M-30599 of 2010 3 preferred before the Apex Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.01.2010. Though it is not clear how this second petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable yet this court has heard the case on merits. It is evident that in the statement recorded by investigating agency, Suresh Kumar, driver of the truck who was apprehended on the spot submitted that that he had placed the truck at the disposal of Ranjit Kumar alias Gogi Sood, petitioner herein. He also stated that he had instructions not to stop the vehicle even if the same had to run over the officials of the tax department. No only this, he elaborated that this was the usual practice being followed for taking the trucks clandestinely and the petitioners Ranjit Kumar and one Vishwa Nath used to over see the operation in a Scorpio vehicle. 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. It is specific stand of the State before this Court that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for taking the investigation to its logical end. Keeping in view the stand of the investigating agency and the nature of allegations, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Furthermore, FIR was registered on 13.10.2009 and the petitioner has evaded the process of law for a fairly long time. It is clear that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for unraveling the modus operandi of the crime as well as his role in commission thereof. As I find no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. November 02, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE