IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-5893 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: March 21, 2011 Rajinder Kumar …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 420,34 IPC vide FIR No.167 dated 29.12.2010 at police station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that main accused in the case is Sarabjit Chauhan @ Sonu and petitioner has been falsely implicated. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has no role to play in the commission of alleged crime and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Crl.Misc.No.M-5893 of 2011 - 2 - Learned State counsel has, however, controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that investigating agency has recovered receipts for Rs.7 lacs which bear the signatures of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was actually involved in the commission of crime. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The complaint was lodged by Nishan Singh, who stated that Sarabjit Chuhan @ Sonu, son of petitioner and petitioner himself are travel agents. While Sarabjit Chuhan is residing in Italy and visits India frequently, petitioner resides in India. They promised to send son of complainant to Canada on being paid an amount of Rs.9,70,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs.8,75,000/- were paid to the accused. However, the complainant’s son was sent to Italy and not to Canada. Complainant demanded his money back, but the accused flatly refused. In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to pre- arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 21, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2