IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29941 of 2009 Date of decision : November 10, 2009 Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. BS Sewak, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. AS Walia, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Jarnail Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 41 dated 6.8.2009 under section 420 IPC, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner received Rs 10 lacs from complainant Harbant Singh for sending complainant's son to Australia but the complainant's son was sent to Malaysia and after residing there in Gurdwara, the complainant's son came back to India. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had only introduced the complainant to travel agents Manjit Criminal Misc. No. M-29941 of 2009 -2- Singh and Sukhpal Singh and the entire amount was paid to the travel agents and the entire amount was deposited in the bank account of Manjit Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that amount of Rs 49,900/- was deposited in the account of Manjit Singh, on the instructions of the petitioner and the entire balance amount was paid to the petitioner. It was also contended that a sum of Rs 7,50,000/- was paid before the complainant's son was sent to Malaysia and a sum of Rs 2,50,000/- was paid after complainant's son had been sent to Malaysia. Learned State counsel contended that there are several witnesses who have stated during investigation that the amount was paid to the petitioner and not to the travel agents. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to inquiry report Annexure P/2 but the said inquiry report has exonerated the petitioner's wife and daughter but has not exonerated the petitioner. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without commenting anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 10, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'