Criminal Misc. No. M-1473 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1473 of 2011 Date of decision : 24.01.2011 Mahinder ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 264 dated 22.12.2010 under Sections 379, 427 IPC & 3, 4 of the Damage to Public Property (Prevention) Act, 1984 and 9, 15 and 16 of the Indian Petroleum Act, 1962 IPC at Police Station Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that petitioner is not named in the FIR and allegations contained in the same are vague and thus petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that petitioner is involved in three other similar cases in district Kaithal and his custodial interrogation is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. Heard. Criminal Misc. No. M-1473 of 2011 2 The FIR was lodged on a complaint made by V.C. Aggarwal, Chief Parchalan Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited NRPL, Ambala alleging that on the intervening night of 21/22.12.2010 information was received about leakage in the petroleum pipeline going from Mathura to Jalandhar An effort was made to detect the leakage and it was found that smell of petroleum was coming from the fields of one Jasmer Singh. The police was accordingly informed which raided the place and found the truck No. PB-11W-7919 on the spot in which there was 20,000 liters of petrol. The same was seized in the process. During investigation, name of the petitioner was later figured in the disclosure statement of co-accused as accomplice. In view of allegations levelled in the FIR, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. January 24, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE