Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the accused has criminal antecedents that may pose a threat to society or hinder investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that a false complaint was made against the petitioner which resulted in registration of F.I.R. No. 33 of 202024 dated 27.12.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ) at Police Station Rehan, District Kangra, H.P. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and his name was disclosed by co-accused Sanjeev Kumar. The petitioner was present with his family members on the date of the incident. The allegations regarding the theft of the digging machine are yet to be proved by leading evidence. The allegations in the F.I.R. are vague and do not disclose the commission of the offence. The petitioner has three minor children. He belongs to a respectable family and would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that his family members were away from their residence located at Dehri. The informant visited his house and he found that the locks were missing. He checked the house and found that the articles lying in the drawing room were scattered and the almirah was broken. The locker was cut. 150 silver coins, one jug, eight glasses, ten bowls and two cooking pots (Donge), two ornament sets, twenty-four silver bangles, four Kadas, four anklets, two gold rings, two small sets and one pearl set were missing. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police arrested Sanjeev Kumar. He identified the place where he had gone with co-accused/petitioner Inder Singh. Rashpal Sharma made a statement that one digging machine was also missing. The Police searched for Inder Singh, but he could not be found. A search of his father’s house was conducted and a digging machine was recovered, which was identified by the caretaker. The police seized the machine. Inder Singh joined the investigation. He disclosed that he had sold one silver coin for Rs.2000/- and had handed over his Aadhar Card. He had sold the other coins and ornaments at Amirtsar (Punjab). He got recovered the coin and photocopy of his Aadhar from the jeweller. The police seized them. The police also arrested Jarnail Singh, who got recovered two anklets. Petitioner Inder Singh also got recovered two silver glasses. The other gold ornaments are yet to be recovered. 2 kg 446 grams of silver and silver ornaments have been recovered. Value reports and bills are yet to be obtained. An F.I.R. No. 153 of 2015 dated 04.06.2015 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506, 323, and 294 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has already been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has joined the investigation as per the directions of this Court. The police have recovered various articles as per the status report. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the police are yet to recover the gold ornaments stolen by the petitioner and the co-accused. He has criminal antecedents and is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Dir