IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 28117 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.9.2010 Tejinder Singh @ Jatinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The complaint has been registered on the statement of Gurmeet Kaur and her brother Dilbag Singh. It is alleged by the complainants that the accused Tejinder Singh, Harwinder Singh and their father Mohinder Singh had cheated them for an amount of ` 2,30,000/-. The son of Gurmeet Kaur, complainant namely Gurinder Singh was educated and Tejinder Singh, Harwinder Singh and their father Mohinder Singh were known to the complainants. They induced Gurmeet Kaur, complainant to settle her son Gurinder Singh in Taiwan. For the said purpose, they (petitioner and his brother and father) took ` 2,30,000/- from the complainants, but they failed to send the son of the complainant Gurmeet Kaur to Taiwan. Besides, they had not returned the money that had been taken from the Crl. Misc. No. M- 28117 of 2010 [2] complainants. An inquiry in respect of the complaint was held and it was found that the complainants had been cheated for a sum of ` 2,30,000/-. Tejinder Singh (petitioner) had executed an agreement dated 25.12.2006 to pay back the said amount. Despite the said agreement, the amount has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the money is said to have been taken in 2005 and the FIR has been registered after a delay of five years and there was no occasion for the complainants to wait for four years. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has not executed any written agreement wherein he promised to return the amount as alleged by the complainants and the FIR has been wrongly registered. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his brother and father had obtained ` 2,30,000/- from the complainants for sending the son of Gurmeet Kaur, complainant abroad. The FIR in the case has been registered after inquiry. The fact that there is a delay in the registration of FIR is not to be gone into at this stage. No reason has been mentioned as to why the complainants would falsely name the petitioner and his brother and father. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 23, 2010 (S.S. SARON) amit JUDGE