CRM-M No. 12718 of 2011 **** Balbir Chand alias Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant. **** The broad brush allegations against the petitioner are that he and the other co-accused had cheated the complainant of ` 12 lacs on the pretext of sending him to Canada but neither the complainant was sent to Canada nor was the money returned to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has disclosed all that he knew to the investigating agency and, therefore, no purpose would be served by his custodial interrogation. Learned DAG, on instructions from ASI Mahinder Singh, has stated that even though some information was provided by the petitioner, yet since no person could be contacted as per that information, its value is nil at this stage and that to further crack this serious offence custodial interrogation of the petitioner should not be denied. This case has been pending since 28.04.2011. On 10.05.2011 the following order was passed:- “ This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 170 dated 03.10.2009, under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur. CRM-M No. 12718 of 2011 -2- On 28.04.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was only an eighth pass servant in the office of the main accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has even today reiterated that the petitioner is a menial servant in the office of the main accused and that in case he is given interim protection he can appear before the investigating officer and convince him about his bona fides. I find this to be a fair request. In the circumstances the petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 17.05.2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Adjourned to 24.05.2011 to await the report of the investigating officer. The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed in the meanwhile.” Thereafter since 28.07.2011 the matter has been adjourned repeatedly at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to get some further information about the alleged main accused but no such information has been provided. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioner is actually the kingpin and has received the entire money. In this view of the matter I find no reason to take a different view to that taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and this petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE September 15, 2011 sunita