CRM-M-1438 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-1438 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: February 14, 2012 Arun Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharath Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, District Panipat, vide FIR No.234 dated 16th June, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing on record to connect him with the crime. He is, thus, entitled to concession of pre- arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that allegations against the petitioner are serious. His custodial interrogation is required for taking the investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. CRM-M-1438 of 2012 2 Gurpreet Singh made a complaint to the police stating that in March, 2010, he came in contact with Arun Gandhi (petitioner herein). He advised him to invest money in certain companies which would become double in a period of ten months and 20% of the amount would be returned every month for the period of ten months. Though the complainant was reluctant, he was assured by parents of Arun Gandhi that money would be returned. Following suit friends of the complainant, also invested money. In this manner, petitioner received an amount of Rs.22,62,000/-. Only Rs.5,70,220/- were returned. Rest were pocketed by the petitioner alongwith his accomplices. In view of the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that for the purpose of taking the investigation to its logical end, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. He is, thus, not entitled to any protective order. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 14, 2012 'rajpal'