CRM.M 14343 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 04.11.2009. Surat Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rajiv Kataria,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl,A.G.Punjab. Mr.Bhavyadeep Walia.Advocate,for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 4 dated 05.1.2009 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station, Amloh. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Gurpreet Kaur, who has alleged that Surat Singh (petitioner) and his son Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (non-applicant) had assured that her husband Kultar Singh shall be sent to Germany in July, 2004 for which an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- shall be required. It is alleged that a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 22.7.2004 in lieu of the aforesaid amount. In the month of July, 2005, the petitioner had called Kultar Singh informing CRM.M 14343 of 2009 2 him that since his visa for Combodia has been arranged therefore, he should start preparation for going abroad and arrange another sum of Rs. one lac. On reaching Cambodia, Kultar Singh gave another sum of Rs. 1 lac. to the agent of the petitioner but even after the expiry of 15 days, the agent could not send Kultar Singh to Germany. Resultantly, he was sent back to India. Later on, the complainant was again assured that her husband shall be sent to Germany via China and asked her to arrange another sum of Rs. 1 lac. On visa No. A-1190896, Kultar Singh was sent to China. Complainant brother was informed by the petitioner on telephone that some problem had occurred in China, therefore, she should arrange another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be handed over to his son Paramjit Singh alias Pamma at Jalandhar. Brother of the complainant, namely, Jagtar Singh arranged Rs.70,000/- and handed over to Paramjit Singh alias Pamma and his brother-in- law Jarnail Singh at Jalandhar Bus Stand. But after 2/3 days, the petitioner again made a telephone call and asked for remaining amount. It is alleged that some family jewellery was sold and a sum of Rs.65,000/- was arranged to be given to the petitioner, but even then Kultar Singh could not be sent to Germany and was deported back to India from China. It is further alleged that efforts were made to recover the amount but except for Rs.20,000/-, nothing has been returned out of Rs.6,25,000/- and Rs. 3,35,000/- which was taken by the petitioner on different occasions. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was dismissed on 02.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a false case has been registered against the petitioner who was not even in India when CRM.M 14343 of 2009 3 the alleged offence was committed. It is also alleged that the petitioner's wife and son-in-law had applied for anticipatory bail vide CRM-M 10829 of 2009 and also CRM-M11435 of 2009 who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2009. As against this, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR in which no recovery has been effected as yet. He also submits that in CRM-M 10829 of 2009, while granting bail, this Court had observed that “a perusal of FIR indicates that the main accused are Surat Singh and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma. The allegations against the petitioner are apparently distinguishable from the allegations against the main accused as such she can be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail” and while disposing of CRM-M 10829 of 2009 (Kulwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M 11435 of 2009 (Jarnail Singh Vs.State of Punjab) on 12.5.2009, it was again observed that “ taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have jojned the investigaton and that the main allegations are against Surat Singh and Paramjit Singh, the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail” It is thus, submitted that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the orders passed in the aforesaid cases. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the circumstance of the case in which the petitioner has duped the complainant of an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- and Rs.3,35,000/- which were extracted on the pretext of sending her husband to Germany and the said amounts is yet to be recovered, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present bail petition is hereby dismissed. CRM.M 14343 of 2009 4 Nothing observed herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 04.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge