Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the Petitioner vide FIR No. 19 dated 11.02.2011 under Sections 447, 379 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Only a person with the name of Dr. Deepak @ Billa was mentioned in the FIR and the investigating agency is trying to falsely implicate the Petitioner by connecting him with the commission of crime on the basis of statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure would have no evidentiary value and Petitioner is thus entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He submits that name of the Petitioner figured in the FIR. According to him, during investigation it has been found that Dr. Deepak @ Billa who has been named in the FIR was in fact the Petitioner himself. He submits that in the statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating agency, it is clear that it is the Petitioner who was indulging in the commission of alleged crime.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The FIR was lodged on the statement of Rajinder Kumar who stated that he along with nephew Rohit went to the plot in question on 11.02.2011. There they saw Dr. Deepak @ Billa along with co-accused digging earth for laying foundation in the plot and when they tried to stop the accused they threatened him and his nephew. He also alleged that forged documents may have been prepared regarding the plot.

In view of nature of allegations leveled in the FIR as well as the stand of the investigating agency that Dr. Deepak @ Billa referred to in the FIR is in fact the Petitioner himself, I am of the considered view that Petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. As regards the evidentiary value of statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure this argument can be raised at the appropriate stage. At the stage of consideration of pre-arrest bail, the facts mentioned in the FIR and prima facie conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency on the basis of statements recorded, cannot be said to be irrelevant.

In view of above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.