CRM-M-20474-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20474-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.85 dated 26.04.2011, under Sections 420 IPC at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran. The complainant Gurmukh Singh son of Hajara Singh and Kulwant Singh son of Maggar Singh have alleged that the petitioner Jaswant Singh and the non-applicant Gulzar Singh had cheated them of a sum of `6,90,000/- on the pretext of getting their sons employed in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. It is alleged that when the accused failed to arrange the employment, as promised, they agreed to return the alleged amount and an agreement was reduced into writing in which it was recorded that on failure to refund the amount, they will execute the sale deed of their house in their favour. Apprehending his arrest on the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran on 24.06.2011. CRM-M-20474-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated because as per the agreement, the petitioner n was to sell his house to the complainants and when the sale deed was not executed, the petitioner and his son have been involved in the present false case. In reply, learned State Counsel has submitted that the co-accused Gulzar Singh is also in custody and as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainants have been allegedly cheated by the petitioner as well and the recovery is yet to be effected. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. In this case, a show cause notice was also given to the complainants to explain their conduct as to why they should not be proceeded against in accordance with law for seeking assistance of the petitioner and his co-accused for doing an illegal act. The complainants have put in appearance and filed their reply. This issue shall be separately dealt with after taking assistance of the learned State Counsel. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE