Crl. Misc. No.M-34394 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: December 20, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-34394 of 2010. Jagroop Singh and others . .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG., Haryana. Mr.Sansar Kundu, Advocate, for the complainant. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on the allegations that the petitioners had floated a Company under the name M/s Bronze Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and they had invited various persons to invest money in the said Company with a promise to pay double the amount within a short duration. The petitioners had also promised to sell the plots to the buyers on receipt of 95 per cent of the price in . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-34394 of 2010 advance. Remaining 5 per cent was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed without there being any permission from the concerned Department to divide the land into plots and sell it. The petitioners claim that they have been falsely implicated in the case and that they do not have any intention to misappropriate the money of the investors. Reliance has been placed on the terms and conditions of the agreement signed between rights of the Company as well as the investors to contend that it was not the responsibility of the Company to get CLU. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the complainant as well as the State counsel and gone through the police file. The petitioners have collected huge money from General Public and misappropriated the same. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioners that it is a case of mere civil liability and that some profits have also been earned by the complainant and that on account of some cheques having been dishonoured, notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have been issued to the petitioners. The said contention may constitute good ground for the grant of regular bail, but no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to all the petitioners, at this stage. No ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to all the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 Sushil is the wife of Jagroop Singh. . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-34394 of 2010 She is allegedly the Director of the Company but there is no sufficient material available on the record to arrive at a conclusion that she was actually Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. She being the wife of petitioner No.1, can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail being a female. The petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of all the petitioners is dismissed except for Sushil wife of Jagroop Singh. This petition is allowed qua Sushil. It is ordered that in case of her arrest, she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to an additional condition that she will not leave India without the permission of the Court and will also not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 20, 2010. rka . . . 3