Criminal Misc. No. M-30272 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30272 of 2011 Date of decision : December 06, 2011 Baldev Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. LS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Baldev Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 3 dated 8.1.2009, under section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, complainant Santosh Kaur paid Rs 7,50,000/- i.e. Rs 2 lacs in the first instance and Rs 5,50,000/- later on to the petitioner accused for sending the complainant's son Baljinder Singh to England with work permit. The petitioner and her family Criminal Misc. No. M-30272 of 2011 -2- members were taken twice to Mumbai on 29.1.2007 and 24.2.2007 where they stayed for 9 days and 8 days respectively in hotel but the complainant's son was not sent abroad nor the money was returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that money was paid to Rahul and Ashok and not to the petitioner. It was also contended that the money was paid for sending complainant's other son Harvinder Singh abroad and he was actually sent abroad by Rahul and Ashok. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Ramesh Kumar, contended that neither Harvinder Singh nor any other family members of the complainant had been sent abroad. It was also submitted that the amount was paid to the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner has since been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.6.2010. Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner that he was paid Rs 7,50,000/- by the complainant for sending her son Baljinder Singh abroad but he was not sent abroad nor the money was returned, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The contention of petitioner's counsel that complainant's other son was sent abroad cannot be accepted because there is not even a plea to this effect in the instant petition nor there is any material on record to substantiate the same. Moreover, the said factual plea has been countered by the learned State counsel. In addition to it, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.6.2010. He is, thus, absconding from the process of law. The FIR was registered almost three years ago. The Criminal Misc. No. M-30272 of 2011 -3- petitioner was even declared proclaimed offender almost one and half years ago. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is found to be completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed, without, however, meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 06, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'