Crl. Misc. No. M-29209 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. of M-29209 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 04, 2009 Balraj Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Balraj Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 90 dated 11.08.2009, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Division No.7, District Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner along with a lady, allured the complainant to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for sending the complainant's brother abroad. However, neither the complainant's brother was sent abroad (USA), nor the money was returned. The complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-29209 of 2009 2 moved application Annexure P-1 to the police and thereupon compromise was effected and the petitioner agreed vide Panchayati Rajinama dated 27.03.2009 to return the money, but inspite thereof, the money was not returned and therefore, the instant FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in application Annexure P-1, it was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner along with his wife (Hardeep Kaur) had allured the complainant in August 2006 to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- , but petitioner's wife Hardeep Kaur was in USA in August 2006 and therefore, the complainant's version is falsified. Learned State counsel, however, countered this contention by submitting that the complainant thought that the lady with the petitioner was his wife, but the said lady might be somebody else, but it is very certain that the amount was paid to the petitioner. In addition thereto, it is contended that the petitioner, vide compromise dated 27.03.2009, admitted to have received the amount from the complainant and also agreed to repay the same, but has not repaid it. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the compromise was obtained under pressure. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. In addition to the aforesaid, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner's wife was in USA in August 2006. Her passport Annexure P-5 was issued in September 2009. Typed copy of Driving License Annexure P-6 of one Hardeep Kaur has been emphatically relied upon by counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner's wife was in USA as this Driving License was issued to her on 08.08.2006 in USA. However, the very first word on this document is `PHOTO', but the photograph of the licensee does not appear on the document, nor photocopy of the Driving License has been placed on record to depict that this Driving License belongs to petitioner's wife Hardeep Kaur and not to some other Hardeep Kaur. Moreover, even after issuance of Driving License, Crl. Misc. No. M-29209 of 2009 3 petitioner's wife could return to India in August 2006 itself. However, be that as it may, even if the petitioner's wife was in USA in August 2006, that would not help the petitioner at this stage because the amount was paid to him and he even agreed to repay the same vide compromise dated 27.03.2009. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. November 04, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE