In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-31755 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 Satish Mahajan ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. The petitioner-accused, Satish Mahajan has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 191 dated 7.12.2010 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC in Police Station Israna, District Panipat. According to him, he is innocent and false and frivolous case has been got registered against him. A perusal of the FIR makes it crystal clear that he has nothing to do with the allegations contained therein. In fact, one Balwinder Singh approached him for taking his property on rent but the deed did not materialize. It appears that the said Balwinder Singh has maneuvered to get this FIR registered against him. The FIR has been registered against the present petitioner and Crl. Misc. No. M-31755 of 2011(O&M) -2- others, including one Balwinder Singh, by Satbir and Mukesh. They narrated therein that they and others were fleeced by the present petitioner and other accused and were deprived of their money running into lacs for sending them abroad, which remained a distant dream. The first part of the FIR relates to the other accused whereas the second part of the FIR is against the present petitioner. The present petitioner along with others ratified the act of Mahender and Dharampal-accused for sending the complainant abroad after the receipt of the money and they also received ` 10 lacs and the accused called the complainant for sending them abroad and was made to stay in a hotel and after that they never met them. Such like offences of defrauding the innocent citizens to send them abroad after receiving huge amount, are on increase these days and so called unscrupulous travel agents are playing havoc with such like citizens. For such like offences, the custodial interrogation is very much material and the very purpose of effective interrogation is defeated, once the accused is armed with an order for anticipatory bail, which is an extra ordinary remedy to be resorted to in special circumstances. No ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 19, 2011 PARAMJIT