CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Mahabir Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL CRM-36119 seeking permission to place on record the amended head note and the prayer clause of the petition. for, subject to all just exceptions. Registry to take the necess accordingly. CRM-M- 1. seeking grant of anticipatory/pre Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.82 dated 21.05.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 25 (6), (7), (8) and 54/59 of Arms Act and Section 336(3) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 111, 346, 303(2), 317 (2) -39842-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mahabir Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. 36119-2025 This is an application under Section seeking permission to place on record the amended head note and the prayer clause of the petition. For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Registry to take the necess accordingly. -39842-2025 Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.82 dated 21.05.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 25 (6), (7), (8) and 54/59 of Arms Act and Section 336(3) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 111, 346, 303(2), 317 (2) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-36119-2025 in/& CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking permission to place on record the amended petition by amending the head note and the prayer clause of the petition. For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Registry to take the necessary steps Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.82 dated 21.05.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 25 (6), (7), (8) and 54/59 of Arms Act and Section 336(3) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 111, 346, 303(2), 317 (2) and 61(2) of BNS added later on 528 of BNSS, 2023 petition by amending the For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed as prayed ary steps Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.82 dated 21.05.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 25 (6), (7), (8) and 54/59 of Arms Act and Section 336(3) of BNS, and 61(2) of BNS added later on AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- vide GD No.36 dated 17.08.2025) Tarn Taran. 2. 2. occurred on 21.05.2025 when ASI Vinod Kumar, alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty, he received a reliable information that accused Jagmohan Duhal Nau (petitioner herein) are having link All these accused allegedly arrange illegal weapons from across the border and supply them in Tarn Taran and other pa further stated that Jagmohan Singh was present in village Kallas with weapons and smuggling money. Acting on this information, ASI Vinod Kumar prepared a report under Sections 25(6)(7)(8)/54/59 of the Arms Act and directed reg village and arrest registered and investigation ensued. accused Jagmohan Singh @ Jaggu was arrested and recover pistol with catridges arms were effected. Another co apprehended with arms and currency. Subsequently on the disclosure of Jagmohan Singh, one Lakhan Si recovery of a 9MM Glock pistol with magazines and cartridges was made. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. counsel h the petitioner nor his name was mentioned in the confessional statements of the co-accused. It is further iterated that the FIR is the result of village -39842-2025 (O&M) vide GD No.36 dated 17.08.2025) at Polic Tarn Taran. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an incident which occurred on 21.05.2025 when ASI Vinod Kumar, alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty, he received a reliable information that accused Jagmohan Singh alias Jaggu of village Kallas and Mahbir Singh of village Duhal Nau (petitioner herein) are having link All these accused allegedly arrange illegal weapons from across the border and supply them in Tarn Taran and other pa further stated that Jagmohan Singh was present in village Kallas with weapons and smuggling money. Acting on this information, ASI Vinod Kumar prepared a report under Sections 25(6)(7)(8)/54/59 of the Arms Act and directed registration of a case and proceeded with the team to raid the village and arrested the accused. Consequently, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, accused Jagmohan Singh @ Jaggu was arrested and recover l with catridges; one 30 bore pistol with empty magazine and other arms were effected. Another co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Roda was also apprehended with arms and currency. Subsequently on the disclosure of Jagmohan Singh, one Lakhan Singh was also arrayed as an accused and recovery of a 9MM Glock pistol with magazines and cartridges was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. as further iterated that neither any recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor his name was mentioned in the confessional statements of accused. It is further iterated that the FIR is the result of village 2 at Police Station Khem Karan, District The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an incident which occurred on 21.05.2025 when ASI Vinod Kumar, alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty, he received a reliable information that accused Singh alias Jaggu of village Kallas and Mahbir Singh of village Duhal Nau (petitioner herein) are having links with Pakistani smugglers. All these accused allegedly arrange illegal weapons from across the border and supply them in Tarn Taran and other parts of Punjab. The informer further stated that Jagmohan Singh was present in village Kallas with weapons and smuggling money. Acting on this information, ASI Vinod Kumar prepared a report under Sections 25(6)(7)(8)/54/59 of the Arms Act istration of a case and proceeded with the team to raid the the accused. Consequently, the instant FIR was During the course of investigation, accused Jagmohan Singh @ Jaggu was arrested and recovery of one 9MM istol with empty magazine and other accused Harpreet Singh @ Roda was also apprehended with arms and currency. Subsequently on the disclosure of ngh was also arrayed as an accused and recovery of a 9MM Glock pistol with magazines and cartridges was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned as further iterated that neither any recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor his name was mentioned in the confessional statements of accused. It is further iterated that the FIR is the result of village Khem Karan, District The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an incident which occurred on 21.05.2025 when ASI Vinod Kumar, alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty, he received a reliable information that accused Singh alias Jaggu of village Kallas and Mahbir Singh of village with Pakistani smugglers. All these accused allegedly arrange illegal weapons from across the border rts of Punjab. The informer further stated that Jagmohan Singh was present in village Kallas with weapons and smuggling money. Acting on this information, ASI Vinod Kumar prepared a report under Sections 25(6)(7)(8)/54/59 of the Arms Act istration of a case and proceeded with the team to raid the the accused. Consequently, the instant FIR was During the course of investigation, of one 9MM istol with empty magazine and other accused Harpreet Singh @ Roda was also apprehended with arms and currency. Subsequently on the disclosure of ngh was also arrayed as an accused and recovery of a 9MM Glock pistol with magazines and cartridges was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Learned as further iterated that neither any recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor his name was mentioned in the confessional statements of accused. It is further iterated that the FIR is the result of village AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- rivalry regarding land demarcatio who has since been suspended, implicate ground for nominating the petitioner is his relation as cousi Jagmohan Singh. recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thus, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. learned counsel hence no useful purpose would be served by sending On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. notice) has arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has iterated that the petitioner is involved in cross smuggling of arms with the assistance of Pakistan further contended that the co with sophisticated weapons and cash demonstrates the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be a pa underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy, identify other members of the smuggling network as also for a fair and thorough investigation. releasing the investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. -39842-2025 (O&M) rivalry regarding land demarcation and the complainant who has since been suspended, has misused his official position to falsely the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the only ground for nominating the petitioner is his relation as cousi Jagmohan Singh. Learned counsel further asserts that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thus, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation no useful purpose would be served by sending On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has iterated that the petitioner is involved in cross smuggling of arms with the assistance of Pakistan further contended that the co-accused who have already been apprehended with sophisticated weapons and cash demonstrates the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be a part of the unlawful nexus. The investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy, identify other members of the smuggling network as for a fair and thorough investigation. releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the 3 n and the complainant (a police official) misused his official position to falsely Learned counsel has further iterated that the only ground for nominating the petitioner is his relation as cousin of co-accused Learned counsel further asserts that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thus, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. It is next submitted by the the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant e counsel (on the strength of advance opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has iterated that the petitioner is involved in cross-border smuggling of arms with the assistance of Pakistani smugglers. He has accused who have already been apprehended with sophisticated weapons and cash demonstrates the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is rt of the unlawful nexus. The investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy, identify other members of the smuggling network as for a fair and thorough investigation. He has further emphasized that on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the (a police official), misused his official position to falsely Learned counsel has further iterated that the only accused Learned counsel further asserts that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thus, his custodial by the and him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant e counsel (on the strength of advance opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in border i smugglers. He has accused who have already been apprehended with sophisticated weapons and cash demonstrates the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is rt of the unlawful nexus. The investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy, identify other members of the smuggling network as that on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- instant petition offence. 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. serious allegations have been levelled face of it, discloses grave allegations of smuggling of arms from across the international border. The recovery of multiple firearms and cartridges from co-accused during investigation lends credibility to the prosecution version and cannot be ignored at this stage. The role of the petitioner, as specifically recorded in the FIR, cannot be brushed aside as his name finds mentioned therein on the basis of secret a investigating officer. The contention that the implicated merely due to his relationship with the co defence which can only be examined during the course of trial a stage of considering against the petitioner disclose his active involvement in the larger conspiracy of cross 7. not find figure in the confessional statement of co at this stage the investigation is at a crucial stage. Considering the recovery of sophisticated arms and ammunition from the co possibility of further recoveries, this Court of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and identify further members of the smuggling network. No cause -39842-2025 (O&M) nstant petition in order to facilitate effective investigation into the alleged I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth in the FIR in questio serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR, on the face of it, discloses grave allegations of smuggling of arms from across the international border. The recovery of multiple firearms and cartridges from sed during investigation lends credibility to the prosecution version and cannot be ignored at this stage. The role of the petitioner, as specifically recorded in the FIR, cannot be brushed aside as his name finds mentioned therein on the basis of secret and reliable information received by the investigating officer. The contention that the implicated merely due to his relationship with the co defence which can only be examined during the course of trial a stage of considering a plea for anticipatory bail. against the petitioner disclose his active involvement in the larger conspiracy of cross-border smuggling of arms. Furthermore, the argument that the name not find figure in the confessional statement of co at this stage the investigation is at a crucial stage. Considering the recovery of sophisticated arms and ammunition from the co ty of further recoveries, this Court of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and identify further members of the smuggling network. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it 4 facilitate effective investigation into the alleged I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, against the petitioner. The FIR, on the face of it, discloses grave allegations of smuggling of arms from across the international border. The recovery of multiple firearms and cartridges from sed during investigation lends credibility to the prosecution version and cannot be ignored at this stage. The role of the petitioner, as specifically recorded in the FIR, cannot be brushed aside as his name finds mentioned nd reliable information received by the investigating officer. The contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely due to his relationship with the co-accused is a matter of defence which can only be examined during the course of trial and not at the anticipatory bail. Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner disclose his active involvement in the larger border smuggling of arms. he argument that the name of the petitioner did not find figure in the confessional statement of co-accused is of no avail, as at this stage the investigation is at a crucial stage. Considering the recovery of sophisticated arms and ammunition from the co-accused and the ty of further recoveries, this Court of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and identify further members of the smuggling network. shown, at this stage, from which it facilitate effective investigation into the alleged and have n, indubitably, against the petitioner. The FIR, on the face of it, discloses grave allegations of smuggling of arms from across the international border. The recovery of multiple firearms and cartridges from sed during investigation lends credibility to the prosecution version and cannot be ignored at this stage. The role of the petitioner, as specifically recorded in the FIR, cannot be brushed aside as his name finds mentioned nd reliable information received by the has been falsely accused is a matter of nd not at the the allegations against the petitioner disclose his active involvement in the larger of the petitioner did accused is of no avail, as at this stage the investigation is at a crucial stage. Considering the recovery accused and the ty of further recoveries, this Court of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and identify further members of the smuggling network. shown, at this stage, from which it AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that potential impact on public order and national security and the stage of investigation, all weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted unless exceptional/accentuating circumstances are shown, which are absent in the present case. mere suspicion but is supported by corroborative evidence. 8. grant of bail depends upon the role attributed to each individual. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. The fact that been granted the concession of petitioner to the same. The allegations in the FIR coupled with the investigation conducted so far, grave offence. and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is t independently assessed. 9. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold the petitioner. -39842-2025 (O&M) can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that potential impact on public order and national security and the stage of investigation, all weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted unless exceptional/accentuating circumstances are shown, which are absent in the present case. The nomination of the petitioner is not based on mere suspicion but is supported by corroborative evidence. The plea of the parity with the co grant of bail depends upon the role attributed to each individual. The ner is specifically named in the FIR. The fact that been granted the concession of regular petitioner to the same. The allegations in the FIR coupled with the investigation conducted so far, prima faci grave offence. It is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is t independently assessed. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary 5 can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that the gravity of the offence, its potential impact on public order and national security and the stage of investigation, all weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted unless exceptional/accentuating circumstances are shown, which are The nomination of the petitioner is not based on mere suspicion but is supported by corroborative evidence. The plea of the parity with the co-accused is misplaced as the grant of bail depends upon the role attributed to each individual. The ner is specifically named in the FIR. The fact that the co-accused ha regular bail cannot, by itself, entitle the petitioner to the same. The allegations in the FIR coupled with the prima facie indicate the commission of a t is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is to be It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against The material which has come on record and preliminary can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the the gravity of the offence, its potential impact on public order and national security and the stage of investigation, all weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted unless exceptional/accentuating circumstances are shown, which are The nomination of the petitioner is not based on accused is misplaced as the grant of bail depends upon the role attributed to each individual. The accused has bail cannot, by itself, entitle the petitioner to the same. The allegations in the FIR coupled with the indicate the commission of a t is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be o be It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is case is not made out against The material which has come on record and preliminary AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Supreme Court held as under : (SCC 10. the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be part of unlawful nexus, custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation identify other members of the smuggling network considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual 11. (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the -39842-2025 (O&M) investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being su need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. In view of the gravity of the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be part of unlawful nexus, pending recovery of the weapon ustodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation identify other members of the smuggling network considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 6 investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well otected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences ot conduct themselves as offenders.” gravity of the offence coupled with the fact that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be part of pending recovery of the weapon(s) and the necessity of ustodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation as also to identify other members of the smuggling network, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression case/investigation. investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it State v. , the Hon'ble “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences offence coupled with the fact that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be part of necessity of as also to this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (iii) September Ajay -39842-2025 (O&M) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. September 12, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document