IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25983 of 2010 Date of decision : 7.9.2010 Leeladhar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The complainant Mahender Singh Meena Engineer, Northern Region, Pipelines, Indian Oil Corporation Panipat lodged the FIR alleging that Channel No.271.250 Km. of Northern Region Slaya – Mathura Pipeline passes through Ismaila village. On 9.5.2010 Dees R. Guard, Jai Bhagwan informed regarding the movement of some suspicious persons and vehicles at the said place. On the basis of the information, the night patrolling party consisting of Mahender Singh Meena, Supervisor Roop Chand, Rajbir Singh, Gurnman Mamu Singh and Gurmeet Singh reached at the spot and laid a siege. At about 11.00 p.m. three tankers reached there with 8- 10 passengers. On seeing them, the night patrolling party informed the police of Police Station Sampla and they took the tankers in their possession. However, the said persons fled away from the spot. Out of the three tankers, one tanker with a capacity of 21 kl. Lts. was Crl. Misc. No. M-25983 of 2010 [2] loaded, one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was half loaded and one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was found empty. The digging work was going on to identify the pipeline. It was alleged that the act of the miscreants was that of destroying the national property which was in violation of the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Pipeline Mineral and Petroleum Act, 1962 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It was requested that legal action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner admittedly was not arrested at the spot and in fact he has been roped in the case on the basis that his name was allegedly disclosed by his co-accused which in any case is not admissible in evidence. There is no other link connecting the petitioner with the aforesaid case. Besides, whatever information is required by the police has been gathered from the co-accused who have been arrested. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it may be noticed that the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak had contended that the petitioner and co-accused were involved in the theft of oil from the underground pipeline. Two tankers filled with oil and one empty tanker were found at the spot. Out of them, two tankers were owned by Rashid. It was contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required to find out their further contacts where the stolen oil was supplied. Therefore, it may be noticed that the case relates to stealing of the oil of the Indian Oil Corporation from its underground Crl. Misc. No. M-25983 of 2010 [3] pipeline in the tanker. The petitioner has been named as an accused on the statement of the co-accused in the case. The statement of the co-accused although is not a substantive piece of evidence but the same is to be considered at the time of trial in case a charge report (challan) is filed against the petitioner. For the purposes of investigation, the custody of the petitioner is required so as to ascertain the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also as to who are the others involved in the theft, supply and receipt of the stolen oil. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to unearth the entire case. 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 seeking post- arrest bail or for that matter, seeking suspension of sentence pending an appeal before a higher Court. In case of pre-arrest bail , the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of powers to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 7, 2010 amit