IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 29786 of 2010 Date of decision : 7.10.2010 Kashmir Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Resham Singh who has alleged that the petitioners had taken `2,00,000/- from him for sending his son namely Sukhpreet Singh to England for study purposes, but they did not send Sukhpreet Singh, son of the complainant to England; besides, they did not return the amount. In this manner, it is alleged that the petitioners had cheated the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists and they have been falsely implicated in the case and the story put forth by the complainant is only to extract money from the petitioners. It is submitted that the relative of the petitioners namely Tejbir Singh is a travel agent in Mumbai and Jalandhar and he comes to village Gorkha to meet the petitioners. The complainant Resham Singh had talked to him for sending his son Sukhpreet Singh to England. Crl. Misc. No. M- 29786 of 2010 [2] The matter was finalized between them and Resham Singh, complainant gave `6,00,000/- as advance to Tejbir Singh. A balance of `1,50,000/- was to be given after Sukhpreet Singh reached England. Sukhpreet Singh, son of the complainant was sent to England in November, 2009 and Tejbir Singh demanded the balance amount of `1,50,000/- but he (complainant) refused to give the said amount. In this regard Tejbir Singh has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P3). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be noticed that the matter was inquired into by the Police. As per the inquiry conducted by the police, it was found that the petitioners had informed the complainant that they would send his son to England for which they had taken `2,00,000/-. However, they did not send Sukhpreet Singh, son of the complainant to England. On 2.6.2010, it was decided that the petitioners would keep a sum of `2,00,000/- at Sri Darbar Sahib at Tarn Taran on 17.6.2009 and the complainant after swearing about the allegations would take the amount, but the petitioners backed out from the promise and gave an application against Resham Singh complainant. An inquiry was conducted by ASI Surjit Singh. During the inquiry it has been observed that ASI Surjit Singh had summoned both the parties vide written memo dated 27.6.2010 for 30.6.2010 which was got noted down from Sewadar Baldev Singh who is working along with Kashmir Singh at Sri Darbar Sahib, Tarn Taran. However, the petitioners did not appear before ASI Sarabjit Singh on 30.6.2010. Then the second memo was sent on 2.7.2010 for 6.7.2010. This was also got noted down by Love Preet Singh son of Kulwinder Singh Sarpanch and Lakhvir Singh son of Kashmir Singh but the petitioners did not join the proceedings. Then the third memo was sent on Crl. Misc. No. M- 29786 of 2010 [3] 10.7.2010 for 15.7.2010 which was got noted down by Gian Kaur wife of Kashmir Singh (petitioner No.1) and Kamaljeet Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh (petitioner No.2) and they informed that they would send their husbands to the office but again both the petitioners intentionally did not appear and their statements could not be recorded. In case Tejbir Singh is said to have settled the deal, the petitioners were given full opportunity to produce the affidavit of Tejbir Singh during inquiry for which they were summoned thrice. The affidavit (Annexure P3) of Tejbir Singh, which now sought to be relied upon by the petitioners has been deposed on 26.8.2010 i.e. after the inquiry was completed on 4.8.2010. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for pre- arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 7, 2010 amit