AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 223 wordsJitendra Chauhan, J.—By filing the present petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in
case FIR No. 72 dated 17.9.2012, registered under Sections 457/380/411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda.
The learned State counsel on instructions from HC Kuldeep Singh, informs that though, the petitioner has joined investigation, but he is not
cooperating. He further informs that the recovery of stolen mobiles phones are yet to be effected from the petitioner.
Heard.
Despite the opportunity granted to the petitioner to join investigation, he though appeared before the Investigating Officer, but he is not
cooperating in the investigation.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State rep. By the State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, has held as under:-
The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s
438 of Cr.P.C.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. In
the present case, the recovery of stolen mobile phone is yet to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required.
Accordingly, no case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.