Crl. Misc. No. M-9087 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9087 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.4.2011 Puneet Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, 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 Section 420 IPC at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal, vide FIR No.699 dated 28th August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is undue delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant was actually sent to Spain where he stayed for considerable period. Thus, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner along with co-accused assured the complainant that he would arrange for work permit in Italy as already number of people had been sent there with the Crl. Misc. No. M-9087 of 2011 2 same permit. As a result, the complainant handed over all relevant papers including passport, ration card etc. to the accused. Rs.5.00 lacs was also paid. After the accused showed the relevant papers including Visa to the complainant, remaining Rs.4.00 lacs was also handed over to him. The complainant thereafter was sent to Malahi by air and further to Algeria by road. They were sent from Algeria to Morocco and from there to Spain. The complainant and certain other persons were made to do labour work in Spain and were kept there as captive. The complainant was ultimately brought back to Delhi via Morocco in the month of September, 2010. After his return, a Panchayat was convened in the village where the accused promised to return the money. He also handed over post dated cheque pursuant to settlement. However, same was later bounced. In view of nature of allegations contained in the FIR, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, his custodial interrogation is necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 25.4.2011 'rajpal'