- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 156 dated 17.5.2012 under Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 372, 373, 376 IPC, registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required because nothing is to be recovered from her. He also relies upon the statement of Arti (Annexure P-2), allegedly suffered before the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class to the effect that she wants to live with Parveen Kumar. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that instant petition deserves to be accepted.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the record of the case. Having given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.;