Crl. Misc. -M No. 17158 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 17158 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.9.2011 Gurinderpreet Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is in custody since 4.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the petitioner himself is the sufferer. The main accused are Dr. Harjinder Singh Bajwa and Lakhanpal. In fact, they had cheated the petitioner as well by taking money for sending him abroad. The complainant had also paid money to them. FIR has been got registered with vague allegations. There are no details as to when money was paid to the petitioner. It only says about three years back the occurrence took place. Regarding execution of the documents the submission is that the petitioner was kidnapped by the complainant and certain blank documents were got signed by him. A complaint was filed to that effect before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission and the petitioner had also filed a civil suit on 2.12.2009 before registration of the FIR mentioning all the aforesaid facts, restraining the complainant from misusing the blank signed documents. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that money was paid to the petitioner. As the son of the complainant could not be sent abroad, part of the consideration, namely, ` 2,40,000/- were returned and for balance amount i.e. ` 7,70,000/- the petitioner had executed a pronote and had also issued cheques for ` Crl. Misc. -M No. 17158 of 2011 -2- 3,50,000/-. However, the same were returned uncleared from the bank. The complainant having been cheated, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, however, without commenting on the merits of the controversy as the same may affect the case of either of the parties and considering that the petitioner is in custody since 4.5.2011 and trial may take some time, he is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Moga. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 20.9.2011 Judge Meenu