JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. (Oral):- This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.74 dated 9.5.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Paramvir Singh. It has been alleged by him that he read an advertisement in the ‘Ajit’ issued by Gurmit Singh Malhi on 18.8.2006 at two places; one for going to Germany and Spain etc. and the other for getting work permit in Canada, England, Australia etc. The complainant approached said Gurmit Singh Malhi who got him medically examined. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. A movie was also prepared at the time of payment of money. Thereafter, on 19.10.2006, he received a telephone call that a seat has been reserved for 9.11.2006. That conversation was also recorded. On the asking of Gurmit Singh Malhi the complainant made preparations for going abroad and spent about Rs.20,000/- for purchase of various articles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is being implicated only because his daughter Harwinder Kaur is involved with Gurmit Singh Malhi. It is submitted that Gurmit Singh Malhi is wrongly being depicted as the son-in-law of the petitioner whereas his daughter Harwinder Kaur is married with Charanjit Singh at Kolkata. However, there is a matrimonial dispute going on between them and, therefore, she has been roped in by the said Gurmit Singh Malhi in his various nefarious activities. It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired ASI and is leading a retired life. He is also suffering from various ailments and kidney problem. He has submitted medial certificate dated 4.9.2004 (Annexure-P.1) in this regard. He has also contended that because the Police is unable to apprehend the real culprit, therefore, the petitioner is being made a scapegoat so as to falsely implicate him. 4. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is wanted for the purpose of interrogation. It is submitted that though a movie was prepared at the time of taking money, the petitioner is not shown to be present in the movie. 4. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is wanted for the purpose of interrogation. It is submitted that though a movie was prepared at the time of taking money, the petitioner is not shown to be present in the movie. However, the statements of Sharanjit Kumar and Gurpreet Singh have been recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have specifically named the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was present at the time of receiving money by Gurmit Singh Malhi. Therefore, merely because he has not come in the recording of the movie would not make any difference in view of the material on record. It is further submitted that 17 other complaints of similar nature are pending inquiry in which also the role of the petitioner is to be ascertained. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. During investigation in the case the In-charge, Anti-Fraud Staff, Ludhiana has found the offences as mentioned above to be made out against Gurmit Singh Malhi, Mukhtiar Singh and Harwinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner is also stated to be involved in the case. It is submitted by the State counsel that it is during the course of investigation that it transpired that the petitioner is involved and there are direct allegations against him. It is well known that considerations governing the Court’s decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought by an accused the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. 6. In the present case, as has already been noticed, Sharanjit Kumar and Gurpreet Singh have specifically named the petitioner and his involvement. Even if Gurpreet Singh Malhi is not the son-in-law of the petitioner as his daughter Harwinder Kaur is married with Charanjit Singh of Kolkata the role of the daughter of the petitioner and that of the petitioner has come on record. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be more elicitation oriented. Even if Gurpreet Singh Malhi is not the son-in-law of the petitioner as his daughter Harwinder Kaur is married with Charanjit Singh of Kolkata the role of the daughter of the petitioner and that of the petitioner has come on record. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be more elicitation oriented. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. —————————————