Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu vs State Of Haryana

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioner â€" Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu, aged about 28 years, resident

of Shakti Nagar, Barnala Road, Sirsa, an accused in FIR No.424 dated 18.12.2020, under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station

Civil Lines, Sirsa.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that on 18.12.2020, a police party was present in the area of Delhi culvert, Hisar

Road, Sirsa in connection with patrolling, when it received a secret information that Dildar Singh @ Dara and Amarjeet Singh @ Amma would come

on Scooty No.HR24Y-3774, carrying a large number of illegal weapons in a street near Police Post, Khairpur. Accordingly a picket was laid and after

some time scooty in question was intercepted, which was being driven by Dildar Singh @ Dara with Amarjeet Singh @ Amma as pillion rider.

Personal search of both the riders was carried out, which resulted in recovery of a country-made pistol of .315 bore along with 9 live cartridges of the

same bore from Amarjeet Singh @ Amma and country-made pistol of .315 bore from Dildar Singh @ Dara. A bag being carried by Daildar Singh @

Dara was found to contain 7 pistols of .315 bore, 2 pistols of .22 bore and 2 pistols of .32 bore. The accused were accordingly arrested in this case.

The recovered weapons and cartridges were taken into police possession. Formal FIR in the matter was recorded and investigation in the case

started. During the course of interrogation of accused Dildar Singh @ Dara, he stated that he is involved in several criminal cases and in order to take

revenge from opposite party, he wanted to raise a criminal gang for which he required illegal weapons. He had discussed the matter with his friend,

present petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu and co-accused Avtar Singh @ Ladi. Petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu told Dildar Singh @ Dara that his

relative Boota Singh of Uttrakhand help him in purchasing illegal pistols. Thereafter, the present petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu accompanied by

Dildar Singh @ Dara Singh and Avtar Singh went to Sitarganj (Uttrakhand) in the month of October, 2020 and purchased two pistols as sample.

Subsequently, in the last week of October, 2020, petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu along with accused Didar Singh @ Dara Singh visited Punjabi

Hotel of Boota Singh at Sitarganj, where Boota Singh introduced them to his friend Ishtayak Ahmad. The pistols and cartridges were purchased by

them. Some of them had been recovered from the possession of Dildar Singh @ Dara and Amarjeet Singh @ Amma, whereas three pistols along with

some cartridges were in possession of present petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu. In that way, the petitioner was nominated in this case.

Apprehending his arrest in this case, the present petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an

application. However, his such request was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide order dated 6.1.2021. As such, the present petitioner has

approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition asking for the similar relief.

Notice of the petition was issued to respondent â€" State. Mr.Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana has appeared on behalf of respondent â€" State and

accepts notice on its behalf. He opposes the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the records and I find that the petition is deemed for failure.

Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons from

harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from arrest and custodial interrogation.

Here the allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious that he had helped his co-accused in procuring illegal arms and ammunition so as

to help his co-accused Dildar Singh @ Dara in raising a gang to take on another gang and he himself retained three pistols and some cartridges out of

those illegal arms and ammunition purchased from Sitarganj.

The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name cropped up during the

interrogation of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence are not much helpful to the petitioner since FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence

and its only purpose is to set the criminal machinery in motion. FIR is often lodged in hurry and it may not contain the minute and precise details of the

incident. The FIR can be got registered by a person, who may not be an eye-witness of the same. It is only during investigation of the case that police

can come to know about the culprit and criminal, who had committed the crime. Merely for the reason that accused is not named in the FIR does not

result in causing any dent in the prosecution story.

The disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible

under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil Sharma, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that custodial

interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this interrogation of

suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting useful informations.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is a must not only to effect the recovery of arms and ammunition but to unfold the complete story as to from

which person the illegal weapons and cartridges were procured, the money paid to the supplier, the purpose of purchase of weapons and ammunition.

In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many loose ends and gaps in the investigation

affecting the investigation being carried out adversely, which is not called for.

Thus the petition is doomed for failure and is dismissed accordingly.