Crl. Misc. No.M-34682 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: December 08, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-34682 of 2010. Jitender. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG., Punjab. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the basis of a secret information to the effect that co-accused of the petitioner Jit, Mahesh, Ranjit and Parveen were responsible for providing attractive and lucrative advertisement in the newspapers with a false promise to extent loan at 0 per cent interest and allured the general public to pay money to . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-34682 of 2010 them. The petitioner is stated to be kingpin of the racket, as per the disclosure statement by the co-accused of the petitioner. He was allegedly operating from Dehradun and supplying fake I.Ds, to his co-accused. A perusal of the police file indicates that during the course of investigation, Jit, Mahesh, Ranjit and Parveen have made statements to the effect that they were provided mobile phones by the petitioner at Dehradun and they were required to collect 2 per cent commission of the amount of loan which was sought to be obtained by the Commission. The said amount was deposited in the account numbers given by the petitioner and the said amount was ultimately withdrawn for the petitioner by the other accused. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of statement of his accomplice and that on the basis of said statements, the petitioner cannot be involved in the case as the said statements are not admissible in evidence. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the police record and I am of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence collected regarding the part played by the petitioner along with his other co-accused in persuading the General Public to deposit the commission and file process charges for obtaining the loan at 0 per cent interest. It will be appropriate, at this stage, whether the material gathered against the petitioner is admissible in . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-34682 of 2010 evidence or not if seen in context to the provisions of Sections 133 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no complaint made by any aggrieved person from Public. The said contention has been repelled by the State Counsel by referring to complaint of Mukesh Kumar. No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 08, 2010. rka . . . 3