CRM M 6624 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 6624 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21 ,2009. Harjinder Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. Present: Mr.Narinder Lucky,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG,Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') in a case, registered vide FIR No.38 dated 02.2.2009, under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Kharar, District Mohali. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Gurdip Singh, complainant in which he had alleged that he wanted to send his son Sukhwinder Singh and daughter-in-law Mandeep Kaur to Australia, for the purpose of study, for which he needed a bank guarantee of Rs.25 lacs. He approached Harjinder Singh Dhindsa, who assured him bank guarantee to be provided by himself or through some of his friend. In the month of July, Harjinder Singh Dhindsa came to their house and took Rs.10,000/- from him on the ground that work has been done and remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- can be paid later on. Ultimately, after getting study papers, he CRM M 6624 of 2009 (O&M) 2 paid Rs.70,000/- to said Harjinder Singh Dhindsa, who gave copy of statement of account and a bank certificate of one labh Singh, but he did not give authority letter and the proof from where the amount was arranged and when the complainant approached Labh Singh son of Bant Singh, he told that the accused had taken his bank account statement by fraud as he had not promised to give any bank guarantee. Before coming to this Court,the petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail vide application No.114 dated 12.2.2009, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, vide order dated 27.2.2009 on the ground that amount of Rs.80,000/- which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner, is yet to be recovered. In this petition, notice of motion was issued on 09.3.2009 and arrest of the petitioner was stayed. On 06.7.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment in order to arrange the payment of Rs.80,000/- which is alleged to have been taken by him from the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, later on showed his inability to honour the commitment made before this Court on 06.7.2009 and has rather argued on merit alleging that he is not involved in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner is the main accused who had cheated the complainant on the false pretext of arranging a bank guarantee. He submitted that the said amount of Rs.80,000/- is yet to be recovered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without CRM M 6624 of 2009 (O&M) 3 commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge