(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 14.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Nurpur Bedi.
(2.) THE FIR has been registered on the basis of a secret information received by ASI Gurmukh Singh, who along with other Police officials was patrolling in a Government vehicle in the Bus Stand area of Village Abiana Khurd. THE secret informer gave information that Sandeep Kumar alias Nadda (non-petitioner) and Subash Bathla (petitioner) were stealing cars from Delhi and other cities and after preparing fake documents sell them. On the the date of the incident i.e. 14.7.2010, it was informed that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda could be apprehended with the stolen cars and a gang can be busted; besides, stolen cars can be recovered from them. THE information that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda and Subash Bathla (petitioner) steal cars was found credible. THErefore, the FIR was registered in which the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in FIR which is recorded on the basis of secret information. It has been alleged that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda (non-petitioner) and Subash Bathla (petitioner) have been stealing cars from other cities and by preparing fake documents sell stolen cars further. It is also mentioned that on the arrest of Sandip Kumar alias Nadda a gang can be busted. Besides, the Investigating Officer found the information to be credible to the effect that Sandip Kumar alias Nadda and Subash Bathla (petitioner) used to steal cars by preparing fake documents of the same and sell them further. It is not a case of the petitioner that the Police is inimical towards him, therefore, his name has been mentioned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar vide his order dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure-P.1) while declining bail to the petitioner observed that recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation was required. It was also contended on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that after receiving the information a check post was set up and a Scorpio vehicle was recovered from the possession of one of the co-accused in pursuance of recovery memo dated 14.7.2010 itself. Besides, during investigation, it was found that theft of a Santro car had been committed which was also recovered on 16.7.2010. In pursuance of disclosure statement of one of the co-accused another Tata Indica car was also recovered.