CRM No. M-26391 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-26391 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2009 Ajay Kumar Arora ...Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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 420/511 IPC at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, vide FIR No.219 dated 8th August, 2009. The allegations levelled in the FIR are that Jasmeet Kaur daughter of the complainant appeared in entrance test for admission to MBBS course being run by Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mulana. Since Jasmeet Kaur could not qualify the exam, her father went to Guru Dronacharya Coaching Centre in Sector 36, Chandigarh where they met Ajay Kumar Arora (petitioner), the owner of the institute. Ajay Kumar Arora assured that he would get Jasmeet Kaur admitted in MBBS course at Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mulana even though she had not qualified the entrance test. He, CRM No. M-26391 of 2009 2 however, told them that they would have to spend money for this purpose. On 7th August, 2009, the complainant talked to Ajay Arora on his mobile No.9216500913. He called them to his office and told them that he had done the needful. The Chief Justice had given a telephone call to the Vice Chancellor of the University. They could go to M.M. University, Mulana and give reference of the Chief Justice. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith his daughter reached the University and sent a reference slip to Vice Chancellor. They were called inside by the Vice Chancellor and told that only an NRI seat was available. However, the complainant found the seat very expensive and thus rang up Ajay Arora (petitioner), who in turn assured that he would again get the Vice Chancellor rung up from the Chief Justice. After some time he told that the call had been made and they could again meet the Vice Chancellor. The complainant and his daughter again met the Vice Chancellor. They were asked to sit in the adjoining room. However, in the mean time, Haryana Police reached there and started interrogating the complainant and his daughter. Their statements were recorded and the instant FIR was lodged. During investigation, statement of Vice Chancellor Shri Tarsem Kumar Garg was also recorded wherein he disclosed that on 7th August, 2009, he had received a telephone and the caller had posed himself to be a Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the crime. On the other hand, it was one Suresh Kumar Yadav, who had CRM No. M-26391 of 2009 3 been in touch with the complainant and he has already been arrested. The petitioner never made any phone call to the Vice Chancellor posing as the Chief Justice. Moreover, no loss of any kind had been caused to the complainant and thus no offence was made out. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident from the statement of the complainant that the complainant has alleged that he met Ajay Kumar Arora, the petitioner herein, for the purpose of admission of his daughter to M.M. University, Mulana. According to him, all discussions in this regard took place with the petitioner only. Even Shri Tarsem Kumar, Vice Chancellor stated during investigation that a phone call was received by him on 7th August, 2009 and the caller posed himself as the Chief Justice. In view of the allegations and the investigation carried out so far, the argument of the complainant that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, is devoid of force. Keeping in view the nature of offence committed and seriousness of the allegations, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. I am thus of the considered view that no case for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out. The petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) September 18, 2009 JUDGE 'rajpal'