CRM-M-21825-2011 [ 1 ] ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21825-2011 Date of decision:27.07.2011. Vikram Singh Ahlawat ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.N.Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This petition is filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.208 dated 19.04.2011, under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had allured the complainant to part with `8,00,000/- on the pretext that he would get his sons, namely, Mukesh and Manish employed in the Railway and Agricultural Departments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the complainant are doing the business of milk. The petitioner had purchased three buffaloes from the complainant and could not make the payment, therefore, a panchayat was convened in which it was decided that the petitioner owes `2,20,000/- to the complainant which shall be paid by him in two installments. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. CRM-M-21825-2011 [ 2 ] ****** It has been recorded by the learned Court below in his order dated 21.06.2011 that “the case was registered under Sections 420/120-B I.P.C. During the investigation of the case, the affidavit of present applicant Vikram Singh and his writing was obtained. There is an endorsement on the affidavit that it was purchased by Vikram Singh on 06.09.2010. It also bears his signatures. His signatures as such were not disputed on behalf of the applicant. However, it was asserted that police might have taken it in the police station. There is another writing of the present applicant Vikram Singh wherein he also admitted his liability and admitted the payment of Rs.8 lacs. No complaint has been made by the applicant against the forcible action on behalf of the police to obtain the affidavit as well as writing.” I have also perused the affidavit from the police file which prima facie appears to have been sworn in by the petitioner in which he has admitted his liability of `8,00,000/- which he had received on account of facilitating employment to the sons of the complainant and the same has not been returned. In view thereof, I am of the view that this case requires custodial interrogation and hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE