Crl. Misc. No.M-25432 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-25432 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.11.2010 Ajit Pal .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Arun Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC on 31.07.2009 at Police Station Civil Lines Amritsar. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Manmohan Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that on 10.11.2008, the petitioner came to his (complainant's) house and represented that he is an agent of the company of accused Nos. 2 to 4, which had launched money growth scheme on Internet. He assured that he would give heavy incentives on the investments of the complainant if he invests money. He also on his own issued the receipts for the payment in due course of time. The complainant asked the petitioner to come later. On 15.11.2008, the petitioner again went to the complainant and asked him about his decision regarding the said scheme. The petitioner also made a telephonic call with the organizer of the company in the presence of the complainant. The organizer of the company namely Irfan Sayyed spoke to the complainant on the mobile phone and informed him that the petitioner was an agent of their company. Crl. Misc. No.M-25432 of 2010 ::2:: He assured that the company would give heavy incentives under the money growth scheme. The complainant was induced to invest a sum of Rs.70 lacs which, it is submitted, has been misappropriated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photo copies of the receipts (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and submitted that the same do not inspire any confidence inasmuch as the top portion of the receipt (Annexure P-2) is left blank and affixation of the revenue stamp is on the side and not under the signature of the petitioner. Besides, it is submitted that the photo copy of the the receipt (Annexure P-3) does not inspire confidence and the signatures on the receipts are not that of the petitioner. It is submitted that both the receipts were given on 15.12.2008 but the Notary stamps on the same are of 20.12.2008. Besides, it is submitted that the prosecution has not verified as to from where and when the complainant got the dollars. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner's custody is necessary to investigate into the matter. It is submitted that the receipts have been given by the petitioner and signed by him. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required which is necessary for the purposes of investigation. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs.70 lacs. He gave 50,000/- US Dollars i.e. INR 25,00,000/- and 90,000/- US Dollars i.e. INR 45,00,000/- which comes to about Rs.70,00,000/-. On 15.12.2008, the petitioner gave two receipts (Annexures P-2 and P-3). In the receipt (Annexure P-2) it has been mentioned that the petitioner has received from complainant 50,000/- US Dollars in 15 instalments for CASHNDOLLAR.BIZ and SCCAPITAL.BIZ. and the same has been credited to his account in CASHNDOLLAR.BIZ and SCCAPITAL.BIZ.. In the receipt (Annexure P-3), an amount of 90,000/- US Dollars has been received in 21 instalments for Crl. Misc. No.M-25432 of 2010 ::3:: NEWCASH.COM, 100ACRES.BIZ, CASHNDOLLAR.BIZ and SCCAPITAL.BIZ. and the same has been credited to the said respective accounts. The petitioner is said to have given the receipts (Annexure P-2 and P-3) and, therefore, it is required to be investigated as to how he invested the cash and what embezzlement is said to have been committed by him. The nature of the investment scheme is to be ascertained. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the receipts (Annexures P-2 and P-3) show that the money was given in instalments whereas that is not the case of the complainant and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such receipts. However, it may be noticed that the allegations are that the receipts (Annexures P-2 and P-3) were given by the petitioner, therefore, it is for him to explain the same. Besides, the possibility of the petitioner representing that he would repay the investments made by instalments cannot be ruled out and it is possible that he has mentioned the payment of instalments to mislead the complainant. It is well-known that the considerations governing the application for seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more information and useful material, is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground to allow pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 08, 2010 sukhpreet