Crl.M.No.M-32484 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-32484 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2010 Varinder Kumar Arora .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.57784 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-32484 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.74, dated 15.9.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Admitted facts are that applicant-petitioner is a travel agent for procuring visa etc. for the applicants desiring for going abroad. As per allegations made in the complaint by complainant-Baljinder Kaur, her relatives, i.e., her son-in-law Kuldeep Singh, son Guriqbal Singh and daughter Karamjit Kaur had approached the petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused Rajiv Kumar for going abroad. They had assured that they would obtain work visa for them and on that assurance, they had taken Rs.13 lacs from them, i.e., Rs.3.00 lacs on 7.1.2009, Rs.2.00 lacs on Crl.M.No.M-32484 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5.2.2009, Rs.5.00 lacs on 24.4.2009 and Rs.3.00 lacs on 15.5.2009. However, neither work visa was procured for them by the petitioner-accused nor the money was returned. The matter was got enquired into by the higher police officer before registration of the FIR and it came during enquiry that the amount was paid by the complainant after selling her land for Rs.13,87,500/- vide sale deed dated 8.10.2008 and the petitioner-accused has been running travel consultancy. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner -accused that in fact only Rs.20,000/- each were paid by relatives of the complainant to the petitioner for availing his services for applying work visa for going abroad and however, as one of them was found medically unfit, the work visa could not be procured. It has also been contended that petitioner has already refunded Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.20,000/-. Some agreement was also executed between the parties and hence, the dispute, if any, is civil in nature. Allegations against the petitioner-accused are very serious in nature. These types of incidents are on increase in the State of Punjab. Payments were allegedly made by the complainant to petitioner and co- accused after selling the land. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Varinder Kumar Arora for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge