JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Kulbir Kaur. According to the complainant, Gurtej Singh is her nephew and resides at Cyprus. It is alleged that the grand-father of Gurtej Singh, namely, Maghar Singh and his mother, namely, Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) had defrauded them by misrepresentation of taking the complainant’s husband’s younger brother (Devar), namely, Chamkaur Singh abroad and getting him employed there. Maghar Singh and Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) had represented that they would take Chamkaur Singh, husband’s younger brother of the complainant to England where they would get him employed and also get him citizenship. It was represented that Chamkaur Singh would have to work for 7/8 hours a day and his salary would be ‘50,000/- per month. The complainant was under financial crunch, therefore, they got tempted with the representation made by the accused. They mortgaged their land and the father-in-law of the complainant, namely, Sukhminder Singh and her husband, namely, Jagdev Singh and the complainant herself had given ‘3,80,000/- to father’s elder brother (Taaya) of the complainant, namely, Maghar Singh. Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) received the said money. On the second occasion, Maghar Singh and Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) came to the house of the complainant at Samana and received ‘4 Lacs. However, Chamkaur Singh was taken aboard but was not settled. In May 2010, the complainant received a telephone call from Chamkaur Singh that he had been taken by Gurtej Singh to Cyprus and not to England. He was made to work for 22 hours in a Goat Farm and no salary was paid to him. Whenever he asked for payment of salary he was given a beating. Besides, he was given nothing to eat. He was subjected to every kind of violence. When the complainant tried to talk about this matter with Gurtej Singh on phone, he did not accept their telephone call. Then the complainant side talked about the matter with Maghar Singh and Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) but they also kept putting them off and held out threats to kill them. Gurtej Singh, it is alleged, had taken Chamkaur Singh’s passport and other documents from him when he reached Cyprus. Then the complainant side talked about the matter with Maghar Singh and Bhinder Kaur (petitioner) but they also kept putting them off and held out threats to kill them. Gurtej Singh, it is alleged, had taken Chamkaur Singh’s passport and other documents from him when he reached Cyprus. Now Gurtej Singh is not returning the documents to Chamkaur Singh. In this regard a complaint has been made on 14.6.2010 on which no concrete action was taken. Therefore, it was requested for taking necessary action. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No.M-32211 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.2010. It was submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the petition, however, her application for regular bail be considered expeditiously. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, it was ordered that in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court on 8.11.2010 her application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court expeditiously and preferably within four days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. 5. The petitioner has not surrendered and has filed the present petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in possession of the inquiry report dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure-P.1) whereby in the inquiry conducted by the DSP, Patran, the petitioner has been exonerated. Besides, it is submitted that Maghar Singh, who is co-accused of the petitioner, has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2010. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. In case the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his inquiry report dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure-P.1) has exonerated the petitioner, as is alleged by her, then the Police is not bound to arrest the petitioner. 7. In M.C. Abraham and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (1) RCR (Cr.) 452, it was observed by the Supreme Court that it is open to the Police Officer, in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who has been concerned with any cognizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of having been so concerned. Obviously, the Police Officer, it was observed, is not expected to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as the report is lodged. Obviously, the Police Officer, it was observed, is not expected to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the Investigating Officer may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest the accused person. Therefore, in case the petitioner has been found innocent in the inquiry report (Annexure-P.1) of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patran, the Police is not bound to arrest the petitioner. Therefore, no directions are liable to be issued by this Court to the Police not to arrest the petitioner as it is always open to it to arrest or not to arrest the petitioner. As regards the contentions that Maghar Singh, co-accused of the petitioner has been granted regular bail, it may be noticed that the considerations governing the grant of 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 the advantage of custodial interrogation of 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. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. --------0.N.K.0--------