IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-34740 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: January 07, 2011 Anuj @ Babbu and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under sections 420/406/465/467/120-B IPC vide FIR No.69 dated 15.2.2010 at police station Adampur, District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. This apart, no offence under sections 420/406/465/467/120-B is made out. They, thus, deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He has referred to detailed report by way of affidavit of SI-Lal Chand, Economic Cell, Hisar, filed in court on 22.12.2010. He submits that petitioners Crl.Misc.No.M-34740 of 2010 - 2 - have been swindling the public by offering them loan at 0% interest rate with subsidy of 50%. According to him, they had collected huge amount in this manner and thus, no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Allegations levelled in the FIR show that petitioners have been cheating general public including complainant Sunil Kumar by inserting advertisement in various newspapers for grant of loan at 0% interest rate including 50% subsidy. They were using the name of a fake firm, namely, Laxmi Raj Enterprises. The modus operandi of the petitioners, as outlined in the affidavit filed in court, was that they would operate through mobile numbers with fake identities. They had opened number of bank accounts using fake identities in order to ensure that they are not contacted. Complainant Sunil Kumar was asked to deposit certain amounts in these accounts. When the complainant did not receive any information regarding the loan, he tried to contact the petitioners on their mobile phones, but same were switched off. According to stand of the State, petitioners in connivance with co-accused had fraudulently taken an amount of Rs.54,63,201/- in the instant case and in another FIR No.592 of 2010, they committed a fraud of Rs.22,67,950/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioners are not entitled to Crl.Misc.No.M-34740 of 2010 - 3 - concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. January 07, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE