IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 751 of 2010 Date of decision : 6.8.2010. Vineet Nagpal …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 141 of 2010 dated 1.6.2010 registered at Police Station, Palampur, under Sections 420, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted that case against the petitioner is that he alongwith Vibhor alleged to have cheated the complainant and many other persons by taking money from them by giving assurance to them that they would be provided jobs in Navy. The further allegation is that petitioner refused ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 to pay back the money, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Palampur. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (!), Kangra at Dharamshala on 26.7. 2010. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. It has been submitted that the case has been registered on the written complaint of Gogi Ram on the allegations that the complainant had qualification upto +2 class. He is unemployed. In March 2008, Vibhor told him and others that petitioner helps in providing jobs in Navy and he took all of them to the petitioner, who told them that his one brother is high ranking officer in the Navy, he himself was in Navy and assured them jobs in the Navy on payment of Rs. 20,000/- each. Lateron all of them paid Rs. 20,000/- each to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner took from them Rs. 25,000/- each and took some boys to Delhi, but no interview was held at Delhi. The petitioner told said boys that they would get the recruitment letters at their homes. The petitioner neither provided them jobs as promised by him nor he returned the money. He threatened them when they demanded money from him. 4. It has been found during the investigation that the accused illegally extracted money from many persons on the pretext of providing jobs to them in the Navy. It has also been found that the 3 accused in this way has duped about 50 boys. He joined investigation, but he is not co-operating in the investigation. The complainant along with his companions Mitthu and Rakesh reported at Police Station on 2.8.2010 and gave their affidavits and stated that due to some misunderstanding they had lodged the FIR. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the stand of the Investigating Agency that petitioner had duped about 50 boys and extracted from them thousands of rupees. He is not co- operating in the investigation. The complainant and his companions submitted affidavits dated 2.8.2010 that FIR was registered due to some misunderstanding, but the mis-understanding has not been elaborated. As per Investigating Agency, the petitioner has cheated about 50 innocent youths by extracting huge amounts from them by alluring them that he would help them for providing jobs in Navy. According to the stand of the prosecution, the petitioner has not only duped the complainant but several other persons, he and his-co- accused have not even returned the amounts extracted by them from innocent youths. The petitioner has filed bail application earlier which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala. In order to find out the truth and in the interest of justice at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 6, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.