CRM-M-21012-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21012-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:22.07.2011. Gian Chand @ Gian Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sikandar Jit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. CRM-38506-07-2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-21012-2011 This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.123 dated 02.12.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Panjokhra. The aforesaid FIR was registered by Harjinder Singh who has alleged that one Mukesh Kumar, who introduced himself as Project Development Engineer working with the Infosys company at Chandigarh, had alleged that the company wanted to establish a BPO (Call Center) in the village for its development. He had said that it will be jointly organized by the company and the ICICI bank. It is alleged by the complainant that a sum of `20,00,000/- was paid by him in different installments to the said Mukesh Kumar. The programme was scheduled to be organized on 09.09.2010. They were told that Chairman of the Infosys company would announce the opening of the BPO (Call Centre) in the village. The invitation cards were printed but nothing was done. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner was also CRM-M-21012-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::: involved in this case as the car purchased with the money swindled off by Mukesh Kumar has been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as Head Constable and is posted at Garhshankar. He has denied the involvement of the petitioner that he could not dispute the signatures of the petitioner on the receipts Annexures P-1 & P-2 pertaining to the amount given to Mukesh Kumar. He has tried to explain that he had signed the receipts only because of being a co-villager. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that this is a case of cheating not only by the co-accused who had decamped `20,00,000/- of the complainant but also has been found to have forged drafts of `8,00,00,000/-. In view thereof, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and as such the present petition is hereby dismissed. July 25, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE