Subash Bathla vs State of Punjab

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 14.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Nurpur Bedi.

The FIR has been registered on the basis of a secret information received by ASI Gurmukh Singh, who along with other Police officials was patrolling in a Government vehicle in the Bus Stand area of Village Abiana Khurd. The secret informer gave information that Sandeep Kumar alias Nadda (non-Petitioner) and Subash Bathla (Petitioner) were stealing cars from Delhi and other cities and after preparing fake documents sell them. On the the date of the incident i.e. 14.7.2010, it was informed that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda could be apprehended with the stolen cars and a gang can be busted; besides, stolen cars can be recovered from them. The information that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda and Subash Bathla (Petitioner) steal cars was found credible. Therefore, the FIR was registered in which the Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the information of stealing cars is primarily against Sandip Kumar alias Nadda and not against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not named as a person who was coming in the stolen Scorpio vehicle. It is submitted that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda is resident of Village Agampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar whereas the Petitioner is resident of Village Mamu Khera Khatwan, Police Station Arniwala, District Ferozepur. It is also submitted that the Sarpanch, Lambardar and Member Panchayat of the village have given a certificate (Annexure-P.2) wherein it has been certified that the Petitioner is not in contact with any anti-social elements. Besides, it is submitted that father of the Petitioner is owner of 70 Kanals 8 Marlas of irrigated land which is being cultivated by the Petitioner. Besides, it is submitted that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-25595 of 2010.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the name of the Petitioner is mentioned in FIR which is recorded on the basis of secret information. It has been alleged that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda (non-Petitioner) and Subash Bathla (Petitioner) have been stealing cars from other cities and by preparing fake documents sell stolen cars further. It is also mentioned that on the arrest of Sandip Kumar alias Nadda a gang can be busted. Besides, the Investigating Officer found the information to be credible to the effect that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda and Subash Bathla (Petitioner) used to steal cars by preparing fake documents of the same and sell them further. It is not a case of the.

Petitioner that the Police is inimical towards him, therefore, his name has been mentioned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar vide his order dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure-P.1) while declining bail to the Petitioner observed that recovery is yet to be effected from the Petitioner and his custodial interrogation was required. It was also contended on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that after receiving the information a check post was set up and a Scorpio vehicle was recovered from the possession of one of the co-accused in pursuance of recovery memo dated 14.7.2010 itself. Besides, during investigation, it was found that theft of a Santro car had been committed which was also recovered on 16.7.2010. In pursuance of disclosure statement of one of the co-accused another Tata Indica car was also recovered.

In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner would be required to ascertain the complete particulars of the cars that have been stolen. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre-arrest bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. Therefore, merely that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda had been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2010 would not be a sufficient ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner as considerations are materially different.

In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, in case the Petitioner surrenders before the Police within three days of the receipt copy of this order, his application for regular bail, if filed, shall be considered by the concerned Court soon after the expiry of Police remand, if any.