IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 14386 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 3, 2011. Bakshish Singh @Bali and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This is second bail application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.59 dated 24.06.2010, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar Rural. Earlier the application for anticipatory bail was filed on behalf of petitioner and four other accused and however, anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner-accused was got dismissed as withdrawn. It was further contended that present petitioner-accused is ready to surrender and join the investigation before the Investigating Officer. On this statement of CRM No.M-14386 of 2011 counsel for present petitioner-accused, anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of other co-accused was allowed and it was directed that they will be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, the present petitioner has not surrendered or joined the investigation before Investigating Officer as per the statement given by his counsel before this Court on 11.08.2010. Allegations are that present petitioner and co-accused had taken `6,30,000/- from the complainant for sending his son to abroad and however, neither his son was sent abroad nor money has been returned. The matter has been got inquired into by the police 2/3 times. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the latest inquiry was completed on 07.01.2011 in which involvement of present petitioner-accused was found. She has further contended that no recovery has been effected either from co-accused or from the petitioner. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Bakhshish Singh @Bali is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) June 3, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 2