Crl.M.No.M-33695 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-33695 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2010 Balwinder Singh @ Babbu .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG,Punjab. Mr.Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.145, dated 22.10.2009, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhabhal, District Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he in connivance with co-accused collected passports and Rs.3,05,000/- on different dates from Harpreet Singh and Paramjit Singh on the assurance that they would be sent abroad and however, neither they were sent abroad nor their passports and cash amount were returned to them. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the complaint has not been lodged by the persons, who were to be allegedly sent abroad and rather complaint has been filed by Harpreet Singh's cousin, namely, Harbhajan Singh. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State Crl.M.No.M-33695 of 2009 (O&M) -2- counsel, on instructions from Manjit Singh, ASI, on the plea that as per allegations the money and the passports were given to petitioner-accused through complainant Harbhajan Singh only and that later on an agreement was also executed by petitioner-accused admitting receipt of passports and the amount and however, despite that neither the passports nor any amount has been returned. It has been further contended that though as per order of this Court petitioner has joined the investigation, however, he is not cooperating with the investigation and neither passports nor money has been returned. Hence, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. His custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Balwinder Singh @ Babbu for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit and the interim order of bail already issued in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, vacated. 20.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge