Crl. Misc. No. M-35667 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35667 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.1.2011 Rattan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal, vide FIR No.220 dated 3rd October, 2010. The allegations in the FIR are that petitioners took money from the complainant with the promise that employment would be arranged for the son of the complainant and received various amount on subsequent dates. The complainant waited for a considerable period and thereafter demanded his money back. Petitioner No.1 promised that he would speak to P.A. of Ms. Asha Hooda wife of the Chief Minister, Haryana. On 15th November, 2008, some posts of Class IV employees were advertised. The petitioners gave assurance that these posts would be available on payment of 3.00 to 4.00 lacs rupees. Since the petitioners were not able to arrange employment for the son of the Crl. Misc. No. M-35667 of 2010 2 complainant, they demanded the money back, but the petitioners refused to return the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No.2 is an illiterate lady and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Naresh Kumar, who is present in court) has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that pursuant to interim bail granted to the petitioner No.2, she appeared before the Investigating Officer but did not cooperate with him. He further submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner No.2 is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of order dated December 10, 2010 shows that the pre-arrest bail application qua petitioner No.1 was dismissed on the said date and the petitioner No.2 was asked to join investigation. However, stand of the State is that she did not with cooperate the investigating agency. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that she is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 5.1.2011 'rajpal'