Crl.M.No.M-8776 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-8776 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 29, 2010 Lakhbir Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG,Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.214 dated 2.12.2009, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against petitioner are that she alongwith her husband Gulzar Singh is working as travel agent for sending people abroad. Resham Kaur wife of Karam Singh paid Rs.5 lacs to petitioner-accused and her husband for sending her son Bhagwan Singh and daughter's son Sukhpal Singh abroad in the presence of complainant and Sukhwinder Singh son of Sewa Singh. The balance amount of Rs.5,60,000/- alongwith passports of Bhagwan Singh and Sukhpal Singh were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner-accused and her husband at Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana, and they promised to send both the boys to England. However, neither the money was returned nor the boys were sent abroad. Further allegations are that the money was paid by Resham Kaur on the assurance of the complainant. Further contended that when money was not returned by accused to Resham Kaur, then she approached the complainant and Crl.M.No.M-8776 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant mortgaged his land and paid Rs.6,15,000/- to Resham Kaur and promised to pay remaining amount to her. However, accused has not returned any money to the complainant or to Resham Kaur and the entire amount has been misappropriated. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of petitioner is residing in England and that there are only vague allegations. FIR has been lodged after about two years of the occurrence. It is further contended that neither the petitioner nor her husband ever worked as travel agent for sending people abroad and that no such amount was received by them either through complainant or through Resham Kaur. It is further contended that no complaint has been lodged by Resham Kaur. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel, on instructions from Rajinder Singh, ASI, on the plea that one of the accused, i.e., husband of the petitioner has already gone abroad and even petitioner is absconding and proceedings for declaring her proclaimed offender has also been initiated. It is further contended that a serious offence has been committed by petitioner alongwith her husband as complainant and Resham Kaur were cheated of Rs.10,60,000/- for sending Bhagwan Singh and Sukhpal Singh abroad and neither they were sent abroad nor money was returned and hence, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail and rather her custodial interrogation is necessary. I have considered all the facts of the case. Allegations against petitioner-accused are serious in nature. Recovery of money is to be effected from the petitioner. She is also absconding. Her custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Lakhbir Kaur, for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 29 .4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-8776 of 2010 (O&M) -3-