In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M-20728 of 2011 Decided on Sept 02,2011 Balvir Kaur --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. AND CRM-M-22252 of 2011 Decided on Sept 02,2011 Inderjit Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.M.Tripathi,Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr.A.S.Rai,DAG, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM- M-20728 of 2011 (Balvir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab) and CRM-M-22252 of 2011 (Inderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab) as in both the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for pre arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 40 dated 25.6.2011, under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of Bira Singh, who has alleged that Inderjit Singh (the petitioner) and one Paramjit Singh had cheated him of an amount of `2,10,000/- on the pretext of facilitating recruitment of his nephew in the Police Department on the CRM-M-20728 of 2011 -2- pretext that he is close to the S.S.P Mansa. The complainant had also named Balbir Kaur wife of Inderjit Singh because she had allegedly accompanied him at the time when the money was taken by Inderjit Singh from him (complainant). He alleged in the FIR that he had given `1,00,000/- to Inderjit Singh against a pronote and `1,10,000/- was deposited by Paramjit Singh in his account who gave the counter foil to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner Inderjit Singh had taken a loan of `1,00,000/- from the complainant after executing the pronote dated 06.9.2010 and when he insisted for reimbursement, he filed a civil suit for permanent injunction but as a counter blast, the present FIR has been registered. It is submitted in respect of Balvir Kaur that she has been falsely implicated in this case as there is no allegation of receipt of money by her. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from ASI Yadvinder Singh, has submitted that third person Paramjit Singh was taken into custody to whom `1,10,000/-was allegedly given by the complainant. He submits that insofar as Balvir Kaur is concerned, she had only accompanied Inderjit Singh at the time when the money was taken by him, otherwise there is no allegation that money was given to her but the allegations against Inderjit Singh of receiving `1,00,000/- from the complainant against a pronote are there. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner Balvir Kaur deserves the concession of bail as there is no CRM-M-20728 of 2011 -3- allegation of the money having been paid to her. Hence, CRM-M-20728 of 2011 pertaining to Balvir Kaur is hereby allowed and since she has joined the investigation, the order dated 13.7.2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. However, CRM-M-22252 of 2011 pertaining to Inderjit Singh is dismissed. Sept 02,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge