Crl.M.No.17760-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.17760-M of 2010 Date of Order: 11.10.2010 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners in the instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.73 dated 12.5.2010 under Sections 420/406 IPC, P.S Phillaur, District Jalandhar. As per allegations, petitioner, who is a travel agent, by posing himself a singer by profession and being involved in sending people abroad cheated the complainant of a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs on the pretext of sending him to New Zealand. Said amount was paid as first instalment out of the total settled amount of Rs.5 lacs. Neither the visa for sending the complainant abroad was secured nor the money was returned. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case because of the fact that the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.9000/- from the petitioner on the pretext of enrolling the petitioner and his wife for a scheme of his company and on demanding the aforesaid amount, complainant started harassing the Crl.M.No.17760-M of 2010 #2# petitioner. It is further stated that a civil suit for recovery has already been filed by the petitioner to this effect. Learned state counsel submits that during investigation, two independent witnesses Ajit Singh and Amandeep Singh as also the Sarpanch have stated that the money was paid by the complainant to the petitioner in their presence for sending him (complainant) to New Zealand. A status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Param Pal Singh Parma, DSP, Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural), has also been filed on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab corroborating the statement of the learned state counsel. It is stated in the report that FIR against the petitioner was registered on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the SP(D), Jalandhar into the complainant and the petitioner has specifically been named in the FIR regarding cheating the complainant. It is further stated that an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 in the suit filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the nature of transaction involved and the fact that recovery is yet to be effected, no ground for grant of concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. October 11, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE