RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSI CORAM: MRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG Punjab. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG Punjab. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

#1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 23 (corresponding under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory 2023 (corresponding under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory 23 (corresponding under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory 23 (corresponding under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.09 dated 31.01.2026 registered under bail to the petitioner in FIR No.09 dated 31.01.2026 registered under bail to the petitioner in FIR No.09 dated 31.01.2026 registered under bail to the petitioner in FIR No.09 dated 31.01.2026 registered under Sections 310(2) BNS/395 IPC, 140(3)BNS/365 IPC, 126(2)BNS Sections 310(2) 339 IPC, , 140(3)BNS/365 IPC, 126(2)BNS/339 IPC, Station Sadar Morinda, 304 BNS and 317(2) BNS/411 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Morinda, 304 BNS and 317(2) BNS/411 of the IPC at Police 304 BNS and 317(2) BNS/411 of the IPC at Police District Rupnagar. District Rupnagar.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and, further, that the tractor of the complainant named in the FIR and, further, that the tractor of the complainant in the FIR and, further, that the tractor of the complainant h. Hence, has been recovered at the instance of the co-accused Gurpreet Singh. Hence, has been recovered at the instance of the co has been recovered at the instance of the co the petitioner, who is ready to join the investigation, should be granted the the petitioner, who is ready to join the investigation, should be granted the the petitioner, who is ready to join the investigation, should be granted the the petitioner, who is ready to join the investigation, should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. benefit of anticipatory bail.

#3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that it is a case where vehicles used to be stolen after threatening submits that it is a case where vehicles used to be stolen after threatening submits that it is a case where vehicles used to be stolen after threatening submits that it is a case where vehicles used to be stolen after threatening , and thereafter such vehicles used to be dismantled so as to be their owners, and thereafter such vehicles used to be dismantled so as to be , and thereafter such vehicles used to be dismantled so as to be their owners CRM-M-33700-2026 -2- sold in parts. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain whether the dismantled parts of the vehicles were being sold.

#3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

#4. The allegations in the present petition are that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, stopped the complainant, who was travelling on a tractor, made him sit in a car, and took away the tractor of the complainant.

#5. It was during the course of the investigation that the co- accused Gurpreet Singh was arrested, and in the disclosure statement, the petitioner was named that the tractor was parked at the instance of the petitioner, to be dismantled later on so as to be sold.

#6. Keeping in view the above, as the investigation is required to be carried out intensively to trace the other stolen vehicles and to unearth the modus operandi adopted by the accused to sell the stolen vehicles in parts after dismantling the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is found to be necessary.

#7. Keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057 wherein, it is a settled principle of law that custodial interrogation is one of the most effective means to elicit the truth behind the allegations. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- “Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the CRM-M-33700-2026 -3- connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis- appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining if passed while dealing with an application arrest, under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code.”

#8. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 30-06-2026 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO