Criminal Misc.No. M- 24356 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc.No. M- 24356 of 2010 Date of decision:- 08.10.2010 Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Misc.No. M- 26607 of 2010 Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mrs. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the complainant. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.163 dated 16.7.2010, under Sections 420,406 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have Criminal Misc.No. M- 24356 of 2010 -2- gone through the whole record carefully. This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 23.8.2010, in Crl.M.No.M-24356 of 2010, passed the following order:- “Argues that petitioner is an old lady, who is mother of main accused Harpal Singh and wife of Bhupinder Singh. Further contends that neither there are specific allegations against the petitioner, nor she has received any money and nor the petitioner has made any promise. Further contends that money has been allegedly paid to her son Harpal Singh and husband Bhupinder singh and other co-accused and not to her and that she has been implicated falsely as she is related to Bhupinder Singh and Harpal Singh. Notice of motion for 13.9.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 10.9.2010 in Crl.M.No.M-26607 of 2010, passed the following order:- “Argues that petitioner is an old person and he is father of main accused-Harpal Singh. Further contends that only allegation against the petitioner- accused is that he received money from the complainants for air tickets and for arrangement of visas for sending their sons abroad. Further contends that there is no other specific allegations against the petitioner-accused and that case of petitioner-accused is similar to his wife-Rajinder Kaur, co-accused, who has already been granted interim bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-24356 of Criminal Misc.No. M- 24356 of 2010 -3- 2010. Notice of motion for 13.9.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-24356 of 2010.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have joined the investigation pursuant to that orders. Further contended that so far as petitioner-accused Rajinder Kaur is concerned, there are no specific allegations against her and that she has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the ground that she is wife of co-accused Bhupinder Singh and mother of co-accused Harpal Singh. Further contended that so far as petitioner-accused Bhupinder Singh is concerned, there are vague allegations against him and that he is an old person and retired man and has no concern with the complainant. It has been contended by learned counsel for the State that though the petitioners have joined the investigation but no recovery has been effected from them and that co-accused Harpal Singh is absconding and he has gone abroad. The allegations against petitioner-accused Bhupinder Singh are serious in nature. The complainants were promised by petitioner-accused Bhupinder Singh and co-accused Harpal Singh to send their sons to Australia on work permit and they allured the complainants and received a sum of Rs.8.5 lacs from the complainants. There are allegations that the payments were made by the complainants in the house of petitioners. Case was registered after inquiry being conducted by the D.S.P. Patran. The payment was made by the complainants after selling their lands. However, sons of the complainants were sent from Delhi to Indonesia and attempt was made to prepare fake visas and however the attempt Criminal Misc.No. M- 24356 of 2010 -4- was not successful and sons of the complainants returned to India. Hence, complainants have been cheated and no recovery has been effected. However, so far as petitioner-accused Rajinder Kaur is concerned, there is no specific allegation against her. No amount was paid to her and hence petition for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Rajinder is allowed and interim order dated 23.8.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-24356 of 2010 is made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, so far as petitioner-accused Bhupinder Singh is concerned, there is no merit in the petition, filed by him for anticipatory bail, hence without expressing anything on the merits of the case, Criminal Misc.No.M-26607 of 2010 is dismissed. Interim order dated 10.9.2010 passed in his favour stands vacated. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. October 08, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE