IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-30351 of 2011 Decided on 13.10.2011 Raj Kumar --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sarwinder Goyal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) This is a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.209 dated 16.6.2011, under Sections 420,384,34 of the IPC at Police Station, City Barnala. The FIR is registered by Dhiraj Kumar son of Ram Gopal, who has stated that he is a State Executive Member of Bhartia Janta Party and Municipal Commissioner of Ward No.5, Barnala. On 16.6.2011, two/three persons approached him at his shop and introduced themselves to be Press Reporters of “Aaj Tak TV Channel Jalandhar”. They asked him for a interview stating that since he (complainant) has not done development work in his ward, therefore, he may give `5000/- against receipt otherwise, he may be humiliated on TV and News Papers. On this pressure, it is alleged by the complainant that he had given `5000/- against receipt No.215 dated 16.6.2011 on which Punjab Aaj Tak and registered newspaper Govt. of India was written. The said persons neither prepared the carbon copy of the same nor maintained any record. He has further mentioned that they had taken `4500/- from M.C of Ward No.7 Harjit Kaur Bhathal in the same manner. CRM-M-30351 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of three persons, two co-accused namely, Harpreet Singh and Sukhwinder Singh who were taken into custody have been released on bail. He submits that the receipt is not signed by him and no carbon copy is retained as the account is maintained privately by Harpreet Singh. He has further submitted that since the amount has been recovered and the other co- accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail, therefore, he may also be released on bail as nothing is to be recovered from him. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from SI Darshan Singh has submitted that during investigation, they have recorded the statement of one Veena Athwal, Office Manager of Aaj Tak who has stated that their company had issued Identity Card to the petitioner and the co-accused, but the receipt which has been allegedly issued by the co-accused of the petitioner was never given by the company. He thus argues that prima facie it is a case of cheating at a large scale even with the elected representatives, by the petitioner and the co-accused by giving threat of showing them on the TV channel and the amount which is recovered from them is not even accounted for in the company. Thus, it is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the scam involved in this case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail by this Court and hence this pettion is hereby dismissed. 13.10.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge