In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-31085 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Vivek Kapoor ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, A.AG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 51 dated 8.7.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Ropar. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner and his co-accused Dalipa Ram had assured the complainant that he would be sent to Canada in case he paid ` 4,50,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant handed over his passport to the petitioner. The complainant also handed over ` 1,00,000/- to Dalipa Ram and Vivek Kapoor at Nangal. Again another sum of ` 2,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to Dalipa Ram at Nangal on the basis of a phone call received from the petitioner to the effect that medical examination of the complainant was to be conducted. The petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M-31085 of 2010 (O&M) -2- took another sum of ` 1,50,000/- from the complainant and had showed Visa for Canada to the complainant. However, in Delhi, raid was conducted by the police and the passport of the complainant was taken and he returned back home after three days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case due to his relationship with Dalipa Ram. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner and his co-accused Dalipa Ram have taken a sum of ` 4,50,000/- from the complainant for sending him to Canada. However, the complainant was not sent to Canada. Rather he suffered harassment at Delhi. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 27, 2010 anita