IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-34053 of 2011 Date of decision : December 15, 2011 Bakshish Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Bakshish Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 61 dated 3.9.2011, under sections 420, 406 IPC read with section section 24 of the Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner received Rs 2 lacs in four installments of Rs 50,000/- each from the complainant along with passport of her son for sending the complainant's son to New Zealand but the complainant's son was not so sent nor the money was returned. The petitioner also executed agreement on 22.12.2008 regarding receipt of Rs one lac as by then, only Rs one lac was paid to him by the complainant. Criminal Misc. No. M-34053 of 2011 -2- The remaining amount of Rs one lac was paid thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner contended that according to inquiry, the petitioner was found to have received Rs one lac only whereas learned Sessions Judge has mentioned the amount of Rs 1,40,000/-. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. As per agreement dated 22.12.2008, the petitioner has received Rs one lac only and in fact according to the FIR also by then, complainant had paid Rs one lac to the petitioner. It was thereafter that further amount of Rs one lac was also paid. Of course, the figure of Rs 1,40,000/- mentioned in the order of learned Sessions Judge appears to be erroneous. However, the petitioner according to the prosecution version received Rs two lacs from the complainant but did not send the complainant's son abroad nor returned the money. In view of the aforesaid, the question of extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. Dismissed without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 15, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'