Crl. Misc. No.M-18734 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18734 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 11, 2011 Paramjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner is a lady who seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case of cheating registered at the instance of Parkash Chand, complainant, alleging that non-petitioner Jaspal Singh alongwith his son Baljinder Singh and his son-in-law had approached the complainant with an offer that they could arrange for the sale of land of Kuldip Singh and Sharanjit Kaur to him at a lower rate. When the complainant asked Jaspal Crl. Misc. No.M-18734 of 2011 [2] Singh and others to procure the presence of original owners, it was assured by Jaspal Singh and others that original owners having migrated to Ludhiana, could be called as they are cousins of Jaspal Singh. After two days, Jaspal Singh again approached the complainant. He was accompanied by petitioner who was seated in the Indica Car. Jaspal Singh represented that she was Sharanjit Kaur. It was also represented that two persons accompanying Jaspal Singh were Kuldip Singh and his son Balkar Singh. On the basis of said persuasion, it was agreed between the parties that 60 kanals 15 marlas of land will be sold at the rate of ` 51 lacs per Killa. A sum of ` 95 lacs was received as earnest money with a promise that sale deed would be executed by December 30, 2010. Petitioner-Paramjit Kaur had impersonated as Sharanjit Kaur, though her name has been disclosed by Simranjit Singh. It has been argued that statement of co-accused to the police will be inadmissible in evidence. It is premature to enter into the niceties of the trial at this stage to determine the admissibility or relevancy of the evidence which is being collected by the investigating agency against the accused. The circumstances of the present case indicate that it is a case of custodial interrogation. Merely because the petitioner has joined investigation, she cannot be held entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail as a matter of right. Petitioner having participated in the offence by virtue of which the complainant has been cheated of a huge amount of ` 95 lacs, no Crl. Misc. No.M-18734 of 2011 [3] extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that a sum of ` 80 lacs stand already recovered. The said circumstance does not constitute a sufficient ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. August 11, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE