CRM No. M-27401 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-27401 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2009 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S. Mangat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh 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 Section 420 IPC at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, vide FIR No.91 dated 2nd September, 2009. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner induced the complainant to co-accused Rajan Sharma with the promise that son of the complainant would be sent to Dubai. As a result, Rs.1,18,000/- were paid to Rajan Sharma and petitioner stood surety for the said amount. He assured that in case son of the complainant is not sent abroad, the money would be returned by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the money was never handed over to the petitioner. He only acted as a mediator and had taken the responsibility for sending son of the complainant to abroad. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner deserves to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the State (on the instructions from ASI CRM No. M-27401 of 2009 2 Ram Singh, who is present in court) has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating agency in any manner. According to the counsel, co-accused Rajan Sharma is still absconding and the petitioner having joined investigation has not rendered any assistance to the investigating agency. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, a statement was made before this court that all efforts shall be made by the petitioner to settle the dispute amicably. However, it appears that despite the fact that interim bail was granted to the petitioner, he has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. The allegation is that the petitioner alongwith co-accused cheated the complainant and induced him to part with money with the promise of sending his son abroad. However, neither the promise was adhered to nor the money was returned. In view of the seriousness of the allegations in the FIR, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The present petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 15, 2009 'rajpal'