CRM No. M-30822 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-30822 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.11.2009 Renu Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Y.S. Saini, 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 & 406 IPC at Police Station Patran, District Patialaa, vide FIR No.205 dated 12th September, 2009. The FIR was lodged by one Mangat Singh, who alleged that he had acquaintance with one Dr. Ram Singh, who introduced him to J.K. Thakur. Dr. Ram Singh accompanied by J.K. Thakur visited the house of the complainant on 25th November, 2007. J.K. Thakur told the complainant that he had a channel for getting bank loans and for providing employment to unemployed persons. He also told the complainant that some posts had fallen vacant in Gramin Bank, Haryana and he could provide job to his son, for which he demanded Rs.50,000/- in advance. On 10th April, 2008, J.K. Thakur took Rs.30,000/- from the CRM No. M-30822 of 2009 2 complainant. An amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited by son of the complainant in account No.65013132804 belonging to Renu Thakur (petitioner herein). The complainant received a message on 16th August, 2008 from mobile no.92176-93360 that date of interview was fixed as 28th and that the complainant should come with the balance amount out of total sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs. On the given date i.e. 28th the complainant alongwith his son reached Chandigarh on the address given by J.K. Thakur but none met them. Said J.K. Thakur also received an amount of Rs.49,000/- from one Sukhwinder Singh for providing employment to his daughter in State Bank of India. He also received Rs.45,000/- from Dr. Chauhan for providing employment to his brother and further a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Dr. Ashok Kumar for his son. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to some old dispute with the complainant. According to him, there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and thus, she deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. From the allegations in the FIR, it appears that the petitioner alongwith co-accused has been duping the people by promising that they would secure jobs for them in various banks. In the instant case, they promised a job to son of the complainant. According to the allegations, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to accused after CRM No. M-30822 of 2009 3 selling his buffalo. Rs.15,000/- were deposited by son of the complainant in the account of Renu Thakur (petitioner) on 19th June, 2008. It, thus, appears that the petitioner has actively participated in the crime alongwith her husband (co-accused). In view of serious allegations in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 04, 2009 'rajpal'