JUDGMENT
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.
1. The petitioner is an accused in case RC 10(S)/2001-SIU.I/CBI/SIC.I/New Delhi under Sections 120-B, 380, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. Apprehending his arrest in connection therewith, he has approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. The chargesheet unfolds that in the course of investigation of a case RC No. 4(B), 2000/SI.I/SIC.I/CBI where 100 manual double sector tickets of Indian Airlines Limited(IAL) were found missing/stolen from IGI Airport, New Delhi and fraudulent refunds had been claimed against the same, the Investigating Officer came across with another theft of ten double sector manual Indian Airlines tickets bearing No. 05822200475190 to 0582200475199 from Indian Airlines Office, Lucknow Airport, Lucknow. It was gathered that these ten stolen tickets were got re-routed/re-issued at various IAL Offices in and around Delhi and fraudulent refunds obtained from various IAL booking offices in Delhi against them. In the circumstances, instant case came to be registered.
3. During investigation, it was found that double sector domestic manual tickets bearing S.Nos.0582200475101 to 0582200475200 of Indian Airlines were issued by Station Accountant, IAL, City Booking Office, Lucknow. These tickets were duly counted and handed over by the official concerned to Lucknow Airport Office of IAL. The same were kept in an iron box of a metallic almirah placed in the room of shift in-charge, the key whereof used to be kept in a drawer of the table of the shift in-charge. The drawer was not under lock and key and was, in the circumstances, practically accessible to all IAL employees posted at Lucknow Airport.
4. Co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, a friend of petitioner, joined Lucknow, IAL on 9th of October, 1999 as Traffic Superintendent on his transfer from Delhi. He was posted to Lucknow Airport Office of IAL on 15th of October, 1999.
5. It is alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, in the month of October, 1999 entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat IAL and in furtherance of that conspiracy, co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, stole ten IAL manual double sector tickets bearing aforesaid serial numbers sometime in between 15th of October, 1999 and 23rd of October, 1999.
6. On 22nd of October, 1999, Sat Pal Singh, allegedly contacted the petitioner on telephone No. 011-6160653 at 1320 hrs. from telephone No. 0522-431274 installed at a STD booth at Lucknow Airport premises for getting the stolen tickets re-routed/re-issued in order to get refunds against the same. Pursuant to such telephonic conversation, the petitioner sent his driver, Ram Pukar, to co-accused, Sat Pal Singh’s house in Janak Puri, Delhi with a direction to take his car from there to Lucknow. Ram Pukar, accordingly, drove Maruti 800 Car bearing No. DL 1 CB 3899 from co-accused, Sat Pal Singh’s Janak Puri residence to Lucknow and handed it over to him at around 10.30 a.m. on 23rd of October, 1999 at Lucknow Airport. Sat Pal Singh accompanied by Ram Pukar rove back his car to Lucknow City from Lucknow Airport and after a brief halt at a guest house of Irrigation Department, Lucknow, he took Ram Pukar in his car to see him off at Lucknow Railway Station. Since no train was available within next few hours, Sat Pal Singh took Ram Pukar to Baba Tourist Lodge near the railway station. He made telephone calls to the petitioner at Delhi from there on telephone No. 011-6160653 at 1214 and 1218 hours from the telephone available at the STD booth near the reception of the Baba Tourist Lodge to inform him that the stolen tickets were being sent by him with Ram Pukar. Ram Pukar took a bus from Lukcnow on 23rd of October, 1999 and reached Delhi on 24th of October, 1999. On reaching Delhi, he delivered the packet containing ten stolen IAL tickets to the petitioner.
7. Co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, continued to stay in Baba Tourist Lodge from 23rd of October, 1999 to 31st of October, 1999 in Room No. 301 and kept on co-ordinating with the petitioner at Delhi for fraudulent refunds of stolen tickets by speaking to him on phone. Pursuant to a talk, which the petitioner had with his co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, on 24th of October, 1999, he visited Lucknow by IC 806 on 25th of October, 1999 and got one of the stolen tickets re-routed. Later, the petitioner got some other tickets manually filled up by his co-accused wife Naiya Relan between 25th of October, 1999 and 12th of January, 2000.
8. On 26th of October, 1999, the petitioner, accompanied by co-accused Arvind Handa, visited Faridabad Booking Office of IAL and got ticket No. 0582200475192 and 0582200475193, filled by his co-accused-wife, for sector Lucknow-Mumbai-Calcutta, rerouted for the sector Delhi-Trivendrum-Delhi. Re-routing of remaining tickets was also got done by the petitioner with the help of his co-accused Arvind Handa, Rajesh Kumar and Prakash Nair. During the relevant period, Arvind Handa was under the employment of the petitioner. The details of re-routed tickets and refund against individual tickets find mention in the chargesheet. The amounts of refund of the re-routed tickets were shared by the petitioner and his co-accused.
9. The theft of aforesaid ten IAL tickets could be discovered only on the night of 19th of November, 1999.
10. The petitioner and his co-accused-wife, along with their children shifted to Shanghai, China in April, 2000 and presently they are the residents of that place only.
11. Though a chargesheet against the petitioner and his co-accused stands filed, the investigation is yet not completed and the prosecution has reserved its right to file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in due course of time.
12. The petitioner had earlier approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and during the pendency of his petition in that regard, he was granted interim protection against arrest on more than one occasion. His petition for anticipatory bail was, however, eventually dismissed by an order dated 9.9.2004.
13. Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned senior counsel, apearing for the petitioner, in support of petition contended that though the alleged theft of air tickets took place between 15th of October, 1999 and 23rd of October, 1999, the FIR in that regard was got registered in July 2001 only. He argued that the petitioner is not accused of commission of any substantive offence and the accusation against him is restricted to his being a party to the criminal conspiracy with his co-accused, Sat Pal Singh. It was urged that the petitioner was unaware of registration of the present case against him and immediately on learning about it, he, on his own, came to India from Shanghai, China to make himself available in connection with investigation of the case. He, it was claimed, during the course of his being on interim protection granted by the Sessions Court, continued to present himself for investigation on all the dates as and when called upon, except once on 8th of May, 2004 when apprehending use of third degree mea ures, he did not report for interrogation. He, it was pointed out, had reported for interrogation on 11th of May, 2004 instead of 8th of May, 2004 when he was subjected to beating by the Investigating Officer and a complaint in that regard had to be loded by the petitioner at PS Chankya Puri, New Delhi. According to the learned senior counsel, the Investigating Officer, later, with the help of one Inderjit, an estranged employee of the petitioner, in retaliation, got a false FIR No. 35/04 under Section 365/342/323/34 IPC registered against the petitioner at PS Mahipal Pur.
14. It was pointed out by learned senior counsel that the entire amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- involved in the case has already been deposited by the main accused, Sat Pal Singh, and that the chargesheet also stands already filed. In the circumstances, he felt no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is called for. Alternatively, his contention was that on filing of the chargesheet and the court taking cognigence of the offences, it is no longer open to the police to effect arrest of the petitioner and subject him to custodial interrogation.
15. Opposing the plea for release on bail in anticipation of impending threat of arrest, Ms. Neelam Grover, learned Special Prosecutor for CBI, pleaded that various telephone calls mentioned in the chargesheet, apart from statements of the approver and other witnesses, clearly spell out the extent of complicity of the petitioner. She added that after commission of crimes in question, the petitioner, along with his co-accused-wife, left the country and started residing in Shanghai, China and it was with reat difficulty that his presence could be procured, while his co-accused-wife is yet unavailable for investigation. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a person with past criminal record, having been involved in as many as five cases being case FIR No. 188/92 dated 2.5.1992 under Sections 506/34 IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi; case FIR No. 348/93 dated 14.9.1993 under Sections 506/34 IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi; case FIR No. 038/97 dated 17.1.1997 under Sections 427/506/34 IPC PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi; case FIR No. 718/97 dated 3.7.1997 under Sections 342/365/506/34 IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi; and case FIR No. 9/99 dated 2.2.1999 under Section 506 IPC, PS Mahipal Pur, New Delhi. In addition, even during the course of being under interim protection, the petitioner had allegedly abducted one of the witnesses, PW Inderjit, and subjected him to confinement and beating with a view to intimidate and coerce him to retract his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., made against him in the present case. PW Inderjit Singh is alleged to be a witness to some of the stolen airlines tickets being filled up by co-accused-wife of the petitioner. It is contended that allowing the petitioner to remain at large would simply provide him an opportunity of tampering with the evidence.
16. Though the petitioner, it was added, joined investigation on different dates, but being armed with interim protection against his arrest granted by the Sessions Court, he did not fully cooperate. In this connection, reference was made to the result of polygraph examination, Annexure.R-1, conducted on 9th of July, 2004 to show that in the course of examination, the petitioner attempted deception in answering some of the material questions. Polygraph test was necessitated in view of petitioner’s non cooperative approach.
17. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential as the stamps used in the validation of stolen tickets and one of the re-routed tickets, the fate of which could not be known, are yet to be recovered.
18. It was argued that in spite of filing of chargesheet, further investigation into the matter in relation to the petitioner and his other co-accused is still open and the petitioner cannot get away by pleading that with the filing of the chargesheet, it does not lie within the domain of the investigating agency to subject him to custodial interrogation.
19. The deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/-, contended learned prosecutor for CBI, by Sat Pal Singh, co-accused, in no way mitigates the offence committed by the petitioner.
20. In regard to registration of case FIR No. 35/04 dated 12.5.2004 under Sections 365/348/34 IPC at PS Mahipal Pur, New Delhi on a complaint by PW Inderjit being termed as retaliatory action on the part of the Investigating Officer in view of a complaint against him for alleged use of criminal force and torture registered at PS Chankya Puri on a complaint by the petitioner, it is added that the aforesaid case was got registered by PW Inderjit being the aggrieved person and the Investigating Officer, Mr. Pandy, had nothing to do with the same. On use of criminal force and torture at the hands of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Pandey, and filing of a complaint in that regard with the PS Chankya Puri and subsequent medical exmaination of the petitioner at Safdarjung Hospital at 7.45 p.m., it was pointed out that, in fact, nothing of the sort as complained of had taken place and it was only in order to create an excuse for his omission to report for interrogation on 8th of May, 2004 that the petitioner got a false complaint lodged with PS Chankya Puri. Referring to the MLC, Annexure.R-3, it was pointed out that no apparent scars due to any external injury was noticed on the person of the petitioner on his medical examination and though he was advised xray of certain parts of his body, he quietly disappeared from casualty without getting himself xrayed.
21. On a prima facie view, the statements of the approver and other witnesses, in addition to alleged exchange of numerous phone calls between the petitioner and his co-accused, Sat Pal Singh, cannot be overlooked while scanning the complicity of the petitioner in commission of crimes in question. In the face of registration of an FIR by PW Inderjit accusing the petitioner of abductioin, confinement and beating, during interim bail from the Court of Sessions, in order to scare and coerce him to retrat his statements, it would in effect be striking a, crippling blow to criminal justice delivery system by allowing the petitioner to remain at large and bestowing on him an absolute freedom of meddling with fair administration of justice. From the polygraph examination, it appears that the petitioner has been evasive in answering the questions impeding thereby a purposeful investigation. This apart, recoveries of stamp used for revalidating the stolen tickets aimed at facilitating fraudulent refunds and one of the tickets against which no refund could be obtained, are yet to be effected, Therefore, prayer for petitioner being released on bail in the event of his arrest cannot be granted.
22. There appears no substance in the plea of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on the court concerned taking cognizance of the offence consequent upon filing of the chargesheet against the petitioner, it is not open to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation notwithstanding that the prosecution has reserved its right to continue with further investigation and file a subsequent chargesheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Filing of charge sheet in a particular case within prescribed period of limitation is a statutory compulsion. The argument being advanced by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, is fraught with danger as if the way he is seeking to guide interpretation of the law is accorded acceptance every criminal would be tempted for the period of limitation, if so prescribed, for particular offence/s, to escape from being arrested and subjected to interrogation, in order to eventually surface only when the chargesheet would have been filed. Reliance by learned senior counsel on a Single Bench decision of this Court in “Court on its own Motion Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, 2004 (1) JCC 308, is not well placed and the same offers no assistance to advance his plea in this regard.
23. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
24. Observations made hereinabove are based on a prima facie view of the matter in the context of bail plea with no bearing on merits of the case.