Criminal Misc. No. M-118 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-118 of 2009 Date of Decision:07.01.2009 Sumit Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Sumit Kumar under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No.480 dated 29.11.2008 registered under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act No.49 of 1988 at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat. The facts in brief are that as per prosecution version available in the FIR, Satbir Singh son of Ram Chander, resident of Mam Chand Colony, Sonepat has moved a written complaint before Rajesh Kumar, Inspector/ SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat when he was on patrol duty alongwith Vikas at a motor cycle in the area of Sector-15. The complainant has narrated in his complaint that he is agriculturist and is also engaged in the business of property dealing. He has further narrated in the complaint that Sumit, MHC, Police Station, Ganaur has told him that the brother-in-law of the complainant named Pankaj (Vicky) has been mentioned in some criminal case in police station City and if the complainant spent some money, he can be saved. Complainant felt horrified Criminal Misc. No. M-118 of 2009 -2- with the said intimation. One day, Sumit alongwith the driver of S.P. Sonepat namely Raj Singh met him at Bikaner Sweets, Sector-14, Sonepat, where the complainant was accompanied with his friend Jitender. Both Sumit and Raj Singh, demanded Rs.3.5 lacs for the settlement of the matter of brother-in-law of the complainant and after negotiation, the amount was settled for Rs.3 lacs. On the same day, at about 5.00 PM, both Sumit and Raj Singh came to the house of the Jitender, friend of the complainant, at Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat where took Rs.3 lacs. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the name of Vikki was falsely mentioned, so he demanded back the money paid by him to them. After so many visits, Raj Singh returned Rs.2.5 lacs to the complainant but Rs.50,000/- is still due towards both the accused. The complainant contacted both of them but they have not returned the balance amount and have misused the status of their post and exploited money from the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The custodial interrogation is more elicitation-oriented, which is required in this case. That being so, no ground is made out for admitting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, this petition is dismissed. January 07, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE