Point of Law: Pre-trial incarceration is not rule.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of pre arrest bail in case FIR No. 181/2022, dated 15.08.2022, under Sections 451, 341, 147, 149, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. Petitioner was admitted on interim bail on 30.09.2022 and thereafter he has joined investigation.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 14.08.2022 at around 1.30 noon, petitioner along with seven other unknown persons formed an unlawful assembly and entered into the official complex and mining area of stone crusher of the complainant Shri Rakesh Chander. It is also alleged that the petitioner demanded extortion amount of Rs. Two Lacs per month for allowing the complainant to operate his crusher. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his accomplices had shot videos of the crusher and office through mobile phones without authority and permission.

3. In the status report filed by respondents, though it is submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation after having been admitted to interim bail by this Court, but is alleged to have not disclosed the names of his accomplices and is further accused of not handing over his mobile phone.

4. Per contra, petitioner has levelled counter allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner is a public spirited person. He has been active in checking the illegal mining in the area and has also filed CWP No. 13787 of 2022 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which Shri Rakesh Chander, the complainant in the present FIR, is one of the respondents. It is further submitted that on 15.08.2022, an FIR was registered at his instance against the operators of crushers at Police Station Garhshankar at about 5.00 p.m. The present FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the same having been registered a few hours thereafter. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has roots in the society and has also permanent abode. There is no likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

6. Petitioner has placed on record various documents which prima facie evidence the contentions raised by him. The case in hand involves counter allegations, which are subject to proof. Petitioner has already joined investigation. He is permanent resident of VPO Kittna, Tehsil & PS Garhshankar, District Una, H.P., and his credential are not such so as to apprehend his abstention from the investigation or the trial, if any.

7. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the names of his accomplices and has also not handed-over his mobile phones. These cannot be the grounds for rejection of prayer for pre-arrest bail. As noticed above, petitioner has already joined the investigation and shall continue to do so till its completion. The FIR was registered on 15.08.2022 and police had got sufficient time to investigate the matter. The custodial interrogation cannot be sought for extraction of confession from the accused. Even otherwise, status report reveals that after registration of FIR on 15.08.2022, the spot was visited by the investigating team on 25.08.2022 and the spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., were recorded. Thereafter, it was on 8.9.2022 that the petitioner was asked to join the investigation by issuance of notice. In view of the above noticed facts, the urgency now shown by the investigating agency appears to be just a pretension. Had the investigating agency been so serious in investigating the matter, it would not have waited for 10 days to visit the spot and almost a month to issue notice to the accused.

8. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. Even otherwise, the facts of the case do not warrant the necessity for custodial interrogation or pre trial incarceration. No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody.

9. Pe