Criminal Misc.-M No. 33999 of 2011 [1] IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 33999 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Amarpreet Singh .. Petitioner v. Union Territory, Chandigarh. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that the complainant had paid a sum of ` 1,80,000/- to him along with passport of Tarvinder Singh, her cousin, for getting visa and work-permit for going to New Zealand. The petitioner having neither arranged visa nor work-permit and even passport having not been returned, the FIR was got registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner had given a copy of duplicate work permit to the complainant, which was annexed by her along with the complaint. However, there is no possibility of getting any visa and work-permit as visa is affixed on the passport. In fact, the petitioner was neither paid any amount nor the passport was handed over to him. He has been falsely implicated. To show his bonafide, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the amount, as alleged in the FIR, to the complainant at this stage and face trial to prove his innocence. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that during investigation, it was found that parents of the petitioner had dis-inherited him in December, 2007 apparently because Criminal Misc.-M No. 33999 of 2011 [2] of his activities. Bank statement of the complainant clearly shows that she had withdrawn ` 1,80,000/- on the date alleged in the FIR. In addition to the FIR in question, 12 other persons had filed complaint with Inspector General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh alleging similar offence, where even cheques were issued by the petitioner for returning the amount, however, payment in some of them was stopped and some of them were returned uncleared on account of insufficient funds. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations against the petitioner, especially that even after the FIR in question, there are other complaints by various persons filed before the Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh levelling similar allegations against the petitioner, which are under investigation, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 23.11.2011 mk