IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24130 of 2009 Decided on 06.10.2009 Maya Ram --.Petitioner Versus State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN PRESENT: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Mr.M.K.Tanwar,Advocate for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No. 89 dated 27.2.2009 under Sections 420,467,468, 471,506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Safidon, District, Jind. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Somwati wife of Hoshiar Singh filed under Sections 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), in which she has stated that she has been cheated by Om Parkash son of Shankar Lal, Sahil Cheema and Maya Ram (petitioner) of an amount of Rs.2,35,800/- on a false pretext of sending his son abroad. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by CRM-M24130 of 2009 -2- Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind, vide his order dated 21.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia argued that the allegations against the petitioner are that he happens to be relative of Om Parkash (co-accused), though he himself has been cheated by other co- accused. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused are cheating innocent people in the area of their operation on the pretext of sending them abroad. He further submitted that there is another FIR against the petitioner bearing FIR No.283 dated 22.6.2008, registered under Sections 420,406, 506 IPC, and Sections 10 and 24 of Emigration Act, 1984 at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. He further submits that money given by the complainant is yet to be recovered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence committed, which is recurring in the society that innocent people on the pretext of employment in a foreign land are being cheated and also the antecedents of the present petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed. Nothing stated here-in-above, shall, however, be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case before the Court below. 06.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge