The absence of specific mention of the accused in the confession and the assertion of not receiving stolen property influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.

The petitioners who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent/police for the alleged offence under Sections 411 IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the main accused in these cases indulged in committing robbery and they have sold the robbed jewels to the petitioner and this petitioner habitually received the jewels from the accused and the accused had already given confession and the properties should be recovered from this petitioner and custodial interrogation of this petitioner is necessary.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a pawn broker and doing business with valid licence. The petitioner has not received any jewels from the accused, but the accused Tirumalai and Sridhar pledged cell phones only and not any jewels but the police insisting the petitioner to give gold jewels. The petitioner is a respectable person and if he is arrested he may be tortured by police.

4. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records. It appears that six accused including one Sridhar were arrested on 110. 2009 and confession was recorded, but in the confession given by Sridhar, the name of the petitioner or his shop is not specifically mentioned, but in the confession of the accused Narein the petitioners name is implicated. This Court is also to consider the submission of the petitioner that except cell phones, he had not received any jewels from the accused. It is a matter for investigation by the police whether this petitioner received any jewels from the accused knowing they are stolen properties, but at the same time it is not permissible to allow the petitioner to be taken to custody by police and to create an opportunity for ill-treatment.

5. It is held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shri Gurbaksh Sigh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980 LW(Crl.)135) as follows:

"17........................An order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual conditions incorporated in a direction issued under S.438(1) are those recommended in sub-section (2)(i) and (ii) which require the applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not tamper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. While granting relief under S.438 Cr.P.C., (1) appropriate conditions can be imposed under S.438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under S.27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of S.27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Demon Upadhyaya (1961)1 SCR 14) to the effect that when a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be that S.46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody: submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. For similar reasons, we are unable to agree that anticipatory bail should be refused if a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under S.167(2) of the Code is made out by the investigating agency."

As per the above decision