In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.2.2009 Piara Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Piara Singh-petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 4 dated 17.1.2007, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur. The allegation against the petitioner, in the First Information Report, is that he along with his son Harpreet Singh had taken Rs.5,50,000/- from complainant Nirmal Singh for sending his nephew Jarnail Singh abroad. However, neither Jarnail Singh was sent abroad nor the money had been returned to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made a complaint against the complainant on 4.9.2006 and after due enquiry FIR No.38 dated 28.3.2007 was registered against complainant Nirmal Singh under Section 420 IPC at Police Station, Kartarpur. The allegation in the said complaint made by the petitioner was that complainant Nirmal Singh had taken Rs.4,50,000/- from the petitioner for sending his relative Sukhdev Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008 -2- Singh abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a counter blast, complainant Nirmal Singh filed the complaint on 16.12.2006 against the petitioner, which resulted in registration of FIR in question. He has further submitted that the son of the petitioner Harpreet Singh has been allowed regular bail by this Court on 23.12.2008 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the complainant had sold his land on 29.3.2005 and had paid money to the petitioner and his co-accused on 3.4.2005. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The allegation mentioned in the complaint filed by the petitioner is that he had paid Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant for sending his relative abroad. It is a debatable question whether the petitioner would pay such a huge amount for sending his relative abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, could not specify the exact relationship of Sukhdev Singh with the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused had taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for sending his nephew abroad. Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008 -3- Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2009 anita