CRM-M-22469-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22469-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Inder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2011, under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural). The complainant Sada Singh has alleged that Kuldeep Singh son of Inder Singh and Inder Singh son of Mohinder Singh (petitioner) have cheated him of a sum of `6,25,000/- in the name of sending his son to New Zealand. It is alleged that a sum of `1,50,000/- was given to the petitioner in February, 2006, `1,00,000/- in May, 2006 to Gurmukh Singh at the instance of Kuldeep Singh, `1,50,000/- in October, 2006 to Inder Singh, `1,00,000/- in May, 2007 to Inder Singh and `1,25,000/- in August, 2007, but neither his son Veer Singh was sent to New Zealand nor the money was returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is involved in a false case as earlier also one FIR No.22 dated 09.03.2007, under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga at the instance of Harjinder CRM-M-22469-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: Singh son of Surjit Singh implicating both Kuldeep Singh and his father-in-law Mukand Singh. He has referred to order dated 24.03.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No.14687 of 2010 titled as `Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others' in order to contend that cancellation report has been presented in the said FIR but still the FIR is pending. Learned State Counsel has submitted that there is no connection of that FIR No.22 dated 09.03.2007 with the present FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2011 as both are registered by different persons for different acts of cheating. The FIR No.22 is not registered against the petitioner but it is against his son and his father-in-law, whereas the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner in which specific allegations have been made of having paid a specific amount at a specific time to him on the pretext of sending Veer Singh, son of the complainant, to New Zealand. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. I am of the view that there are substantial allegations against the petitioner of receiving money from the complainant in the name of sending his son Veer Singh abroad who was neither sent nor money has been returned, therefore, he is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE