The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of custodial interrogation in certain cases and the lack of maintainability of a second application for anticipatory bail when there is little respect for the legal process.

Amar Dutt, J.

1. The petitioner, who is named as one of the accused in FIR No. 174 dated 23.5.2003, under Sections 406/420/386/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act earlier registered in Police Station, Civil LInes, Amritsar, has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. In relation to the FIR, which was registered on the basis of an application moved by Honble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh Bains (Retd.), Chairman of the Human Rights Organisation, Civil Writ Petition No. 8521 of 2003 was filed in this Court for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and after requisite orders had been passed in this regard, respondent No. 1 registered case No. RCI(S)/2003/SIU-V/SIC, II/CBI, New Delhi.

2. Respondent No. 2, who is evidently one of the star witnesses, during the investigation of the case, had given a statement to the police of Amritsar district and subsequently her statement was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. In both these statements, she had evidently implicated the petitioner and on this account he had moved Criminal Misc. No. 54633-M of 2003 before this Court. this Court had, after giving the following facts :-

"The main ground, on which the petitioner seeks to maintain this petition, is the assertion that neither in FIR No. 174 nor in RC1(S)/2003/SIU/V/SIC, II/CBI, New Delhi, which has been registered by the CBI, on the basis of the direction of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8521 of 2003, is there any mention of his name in connection with any of the misdemeanours that had been highlighted therein. According to the petitioner, there was no prima facie evidence against him and the subsequent statement of Ms. Neelam Sidhu, on the basis whereof, he is sought to be involved cannot be relied upon as her statement is highly belated and she has not tried to approach the police on any earlier occasion. He further states that during the pendency of the application before the Sessions Judge, Patiala, he has joined the investigation and the observation in the order of the said officer to the effect that he has not cared to join the investigation is against the record. In view of this, he submits that a case is made out in which respectable men like him should be protected against the harassment, which he is bound to suffer at the hands of the police and appropriate order may be passed granting him anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. Mr. Rajan Gupta, Standing Counsel for CBI admits that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 21.10.2003, on which date, he had indicated that he was not feeling well and would appear on the following day. It was also submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer but as he was not cooperating with the officer by clearly answering the queries of the investigating agency, it is imperative that the Central Bureau of Investigation may be allowed to question the petitioner while in custody so that some head-way could be made in the investigation of the case. Mr. Gupta also pointed out that though in the initial FIR, there is only a passing reference to the use of women and money by management of M/s Amritsar Communication Network Private Limited, yet during the course of investigation before the Punjab Police, at the first instance and before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar when her statement was recorded on the direction of this Court and thereafter before the Investigating Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ms. Neelam Sidhu had made a detailed statement regarding the circumstances in which the petitioner was responsible for exploiting her sexually and forcing her to enter upon sexual liaisons with some officers, will have to be confronted to the petitioner so as to throw light upon modus operandi adopted by the petitioner and his co-accused for making money and for doing so using money and muscle power for achievin