CRM-M-20250 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-20250 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.08.2011 Kundan Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.H.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.61 dated 12.6.2011 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Division No.1, Ludhiana. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken `5 lacs from the complainant in the name of facilitating admission of the son of the complainant in the medical college. It is alleged that neither the admission could be arranged nor money has been returned. On the contrary, the version of the petitioner is that he had obtained a loan of `1 lac from the complainant in the year 2006 as he was in need of money at that time. In lieu thereof, he had handed over four blank cheques as security for returning the loan but despite the fact that the petitioner had returned the amount of loan, the blank cheques were not returned and he has been involved in this false case. CRM-M-20250 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner had given five post-dated cheques, details of which are as under:- Sr. No. Date of Cheque Amount in ` 1. 05.04.2011 40,000/- 2. 05.05.2011 40,000/- 3. 05.12.2011 1,00,000/- 4. 05.06.2012 1,00,000/- 5. 05.12.2012 1,00,000/- Out of the aforesaid cheques, cheque dated 5.4.2011 has already been bounced on the ground that the petitioner had stopped the payment. It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that if the petitioner had obtained only a loan of `1 lac in the year 2006 then why he has given the aforesaid cheques amounting to `3,80,000/- and since the first cheque has been bounced because the petitioner had stopped the payment, the intention of the petitioner is obvious of cheating. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that though the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court and has joined the investigation as well but the recovery of the amount is yet to be effected. In view of the fact that the petitioner could not explain the circumstances for the issuance of aforesaid cheques to the complainant and that recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 10, 2011 JUDGE Vivek