Criminal Misc. -M No. 23552 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 23552 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.8.2011 Rameshwar Dass .. Petitioner vs State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 359 dated 8.7.2011 registered under Sections 506, 186, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of Divisional Forest officer, Yamuna Nagar stating that he had been receiving calls on his mobile regularly from some person directing him to provide job to a girl, namely Pooja. He claimed himself to be a well connected person. Sandeep and Pooja, son and daughter respectively, of the petitioner, were arrested. Sandeep is in custody whereas Pooja has been released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in this offence. He is merely working as a guard with a private construction company at Karnal. He has been roped only on the disclosure statement of his son. Even in the FIR, the complainant stated that only one person used to call him. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, considering the kind of allegations in the FIR and the observations made by the learned court below in its order while rejecting pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner that mobile connection has been taken by them in the name of Criminal Misc. -M No. 23552 of 2011 (2) some other person by promising him a job, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required. This fact is not in dispute that the mobile which was used in the crime is in the name of other person and not in the name of the petitioner or in the name of his son or daughter. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the learned court below has not committed any error while rejecting the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner as there may be some more persons, who might have also been cheated by the petitioner with similar tactics. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 5.8.2011 (Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge