IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19348 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.7.2010 Paramjit Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on a complaint made by Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RBO, Fountain Chowk, Civil Line, Ludhiana. It is inter alia alleged that the petitioner had taken a cash credit limit from the complainant Bank. For the amount of the loan that was taken, one Surinder Pal stood as guarantor and he deposited sale deed with the Bank bearing Wasika No.2465 dated 22.5.1990 as equitable mortgage which turned out to be a forged and fabricated document. It is alleged by the complainant that all the accused made dishonest and fraudulent representation that accused Surinder Pal is owner of the property on the basis of sale deed Wasika No.2465 executed by Baljinder Singh and attested by Crl. Misc. No. M-19348 of 2010 [2] Jagdish Singh, Lambardar and Ramesh Dass. The bank was induced to give a loan amount of Rs.58.50 lacs and a sum of Rs.70.76 lacs inclusive of interest calculated upto 28.2.2007 is outstanding against the accused. According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner has not repaid his installments after the second loan was taken. It is submitted that the custody of the petitioner is required to ascertain the whereabouts of Surinder Pal Singh and also to know as to how the false sale deed was prepared which was deposited as equitable mortgage with the Bank. 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 even, seeking suspension of sentence pending an 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 present case, the investigating authorities require the custody of the petitioner to carry out complete and effective investigation. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 21, 2010 amit