CRM-M-16039 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16039 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2011 Vicky alias Sunder Sharma (Presently confined in District Jail, Kurukshetra) . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.K.K. Manan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.10, dated 06.01.2011 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 10/24 of Emigration Act, Police Station City Thanesar. The allegations contained in the FIR are that the complainant and one Ranjit Lal Kaul are known to each other being neighbours. Ranjit Lal Kaul has been arranging Visa for the family members and the complainant for their foreign trips. He allegedly allured the complainant that he would arrange the Visa and Permanent Residentship of Canada for his son Ankush Sharma and would also get his son married with a girl of Canada. In this bargain, he had asked for `6 lacs. The complainant is alleged to have given `3 lacs to him on 3.1.2009 and had also handed over the original passport of his son, wife and himself. On 20.3.2010, Ranjit Lal represented the complainant that he had arranged Visa for Ankush for Canada and his passport would reach him through post. However as per complainant, he did not receive the passport rather it is alleged that in July 2010, Ranjit Lal represented that the girl proposed for CRM-M-16039 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Ankush has come to India with her mother for the purpose of marriage. On 7.7.2010 Sunita Anand and Ruchika Anand came to the house of the complainant along with the petitioner, who was introduced as her cousin. The marriage proposal was finalised and on 16.7.2010 the complainant along with his family members went to Gurgaon where engagement ceremony was also performed. It is further alleged that on 29.12.2010, the complainant received a telephone call from Ruchika that their passports were in custody of the agent, who is asking for `2 lacs otherwise Ankush would not be able to go to Canada. He has alleged that he gave `2 lacs to Vicky, Ruchika and Ranjit Lal at his house on 2.8.2010. On this premise, it was alleged that petitioner has committed offence of cheating by introducing himself as the cousin of Ruchika and also collected `2 lacs on 2.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire FIR, the petitioner is named at two places, one at the time when he is alleged to have been taken to the house of the complainant along with two ladies and secondly when a sum of `2 lacs was paid on 2.8.2010. In this regard, he has submitted that insofar as the amount of `2 lacs is concerned, the police has presented the challan in which a receipt has been attached purported to have been issued by Ranjit Lal Kaul, who has alleged that a sum of `2 lacs has been taken by him and he would be responsible for the entire work. He submits that the petitioner is not mentioned in the receipt even as a witness. Insofar as his presence at the time of visit of Ruchika and Sunita is concerned that would not be an offence under any of the provisions of law. As against this, learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from SI Mahinder Singh, has submitted that out of the five accused only the petitioner has been arrested whereas one of the accused was not sent up as an accused and other three namely, Ruchika, Sunita and Ranjit Lal Kaul, they have been declared proclaimed offenders as they have not been arrested. He further submits that the petitioner had a connivance with Ranjit Lal Kaul since beginning as the car in which they had visited the house of the complainant has been recovered from him. CRM-M-16039 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student of Law, who has been falsely framed in this case as he is not a beneficiary of the entire deal. He did not introduce Ranjit Lal Kaul to the complainant as both of them were known to each other being the neighbours. Secondly, complainant himself was anxious for sending his son to Canada and was keen to marry him there. In this regard, he himself struck a deal of `6 lacs with Ranjit Lal Kaul. If there was any cheating for the purpose of marriage then it was at the hands of Ruchika or her mother Sunita, who even had performed the engagement at Gurgaon. The amount of `2 lacs was collected by Ranjit Lal Kaul against receipt of 2.8.2010. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody from 22.4.2011 and challan has also been presented. He further submits that he is not required for any further investigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, petition is hereby allowed and petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/City Magistrate. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 22, 2011 JUDGE Vivek