In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 18.3.2009 CRM No.M-7658 of 2008 Gurmail Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CRM No.M-8399 of 2008 Sohan Singh @ Sohni ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CRM No.M-16250 of 2008 Baljit Singh @ Toni ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jagpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Gaurav Bhaiya, Advocate, Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. This order shall dispose of CRM No. M-7658 of 2008, CRM No. M-8399 of 2008 and CRM No. M-16250 of 2008. These petitions have been filed under Section 438 of the CRM No.M-7658 of 2008 -2- Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 11 dated 4.2.2008, under Sections 420, 342, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana. The allegations against the petitioners are that they in connivance with three other co-accused, who are absconding, have taken in all Rs.54,00,000/- for sending Sukhwinder Singh, Inderjit Singh and Amanpreet Singh to Canada. The said persons were neither sent to Canada nor the amount taken from them was returned to the complainant party. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the complainants were themselves doing the business of travel agent and, hence, the allegations levelled by them could not be believed. The petitioners had been falsely involved this case. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed these petitions and has submitted that Inderjit Singh and Amanpreet Singh were running a firm under the name and style “Sahib Enterprises (Regd.) Immigration Consultants” Registration No. 954 in the year 2007. They were only doing the job of consultancy to the customers and had not done any work of travel agent. After 4-5 months, the said office was closed and now a beauty parlor is running in the said premises by some other persons. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. Petitioner Sohan Singh @ Sohni has allegedly taken Rs.20,00,000/- from Harchand Singh. So far as petitioner Baljit Singh @ Toni is concerned, in his presence Rs.4,00,000/- were paid to Sam by Sukhwinder Singh. So far as petitioner Gurmail Singh is CRM No.M-7658 of 2008 -3- concerned, as per version of petitioner Sohan Singh @ Sohni, the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- had been handed over to Gurmail Singh. Investigation of the case is still going on. The other three accused are absconding. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners might be necessary. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 18, 2009 anita