Crl. Misc. No. M-30424 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-30424 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.1.2011 Sanjeev Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No.129 dated 24th April, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner's father Sunil Sharma, against whom allegations are levelled, has since expired. After his death, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is, thus, entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail. The prayer for pre-arrest bail has, however, been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel, who submits that in view of the nature of the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Misc. No. M-30424 of 2010 2 The FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of complainant Dr. Darshan Singh Bajaj. He alleged that initially father of the petitioner, namely Sunil Sharma and co-accused Amrish Kumar alias Bobby had defrauded him of a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs. They made him believed that one Anil Kumar Tandon of Dehradoon was owner of a house situated there. The complainant agreed to purchase the same but said Anil Kumar Tandon was found to be impersonator. After death of Sunil Kumar his son, namely Sanjeev Sharma (petitioner herein) kept on misrepresenting to the complainant that he would get the sale deed executed and registered. In lieu of same, a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs was paid to him for transmission to Anil Kumar. In view of the nature of allegations contained in the FIR, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 6.1.2011 'rajpal'