JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.), seeking pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR No.31 dated 29.4.2012 under Sections 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ram Dass, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the land was owned by them and they have harvested their own crop therefrom. He further submits that in the meticulous compliance of the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigation. They cooperated with the investigating agency and pursuant thereto licensed rifle of petitioner No.1 has been got recovered, which is now in the possession of the police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners concluded by submitting that in view of joining the investigation by the petitioners and cooperating with the investigating agency including the recovery of licensed rifle of petitioner No.1, their custodial interrogation is not required and the present petition deserves to be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kuldip Singh, Police Station Ram Dass, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, submits that although the petitioners have joined the investigation and got recovered the licensed rifle of petitioner No.1 yet the stolen property i.e. wheat is yet to be recovered. He further submits that petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and expedient to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. I say so because the ownership of the land as well as of the alleged stolen property i.e. wheat is yet to be established whether the petitioners have harvested their own crop sown by them on their own land or the same was owned and possessed by the complainant. So far as the recovery of licensed arm i.e. rifle is concerned, that has already been effected. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. 7. So far as the recovery of licensed arm i.e. rifle is concerned, that has already been effected. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. 7. The view taken by this Court also finds supports from the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Siddaram Setingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Crl.) 126. 8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 5.6.2012 is made absolute. 9. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------