Custodial interrogation is not necessary when the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and not interfere with witnesses.

1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail.

2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has all alone offered assistance to the Investigating Officer and continues to do so. He further contends that the order rejecting his bail by the Trial Court is on erroneous assumption that certain documents have been filed, which are forged bills.

3. Counsel for the State submits that they have yet to find out the place from where the petitioner had purchased the Bitumen and the custodial interrogation is necessary only for this purpose.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I do not agree with the system of custodial interrogation to find out the truth. Surely the law permits interrogation without subjecting him to third decree methods.

5. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, if sought to be arrested in case F.I.R. No. 24/2004, under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of POC Act, 1988, Police Station AC Branch, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required, shall co-operate with the investigation shall cause no impediment in the investigation and shall not tamper with the witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation on 5.6.2007 at 10.30 a.m. -

6. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Dasti.

Application disposed of.