CRM Nos.9760, 9767 & 6771 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-9760 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.4.2011 Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-9767 of 2011 (O&M) Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-6771 of 2011 (O&M) Inderjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned three petitions filed on behalf of accused Satnam Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Indedrjit Singh, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No.211 dated 20th November, 2010. CRM Nos.9760, 9767 & 6771 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that there is no evidence to link the petitioners with the crime. According to them, it was not known as to who had floated the company and duped the investors. In any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. They are, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel (on instructions from S.I. Ravel Singh, who is present in court) has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused flouted a company in the name of M/s Maximum Trade Incorporation and also opened a website i.e. www.maxforexonlinebiz. Investors were duped of crores of rupees. He has submitted that Rs.11,11,000/- were paid by various persons at the residence of accused Inderjit Singh, Rs.17.00 lacs were paid to Satnam Singh and Rs.12.00 lacs to Jagdeep Singh. After duping the investors, the website was closed. He has submitted that in view of the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. According to the prosecution case, accused Inderjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Jagdeep Singh had floated a company known as M/s Maximum Trade Incorporation. It had a website in the name of www.maxforexonlinebiz. It was held out on the website that in case Rs.1,04,550/- were invested in the company, the investors would be paid Rs.20,400/- continuously for 12 months. The accused persons also met people in a hotel named Maharaja Regency and gave details of the plan CRM Nos.9760, 9767 & 6771 of 2011 3 to them. The accused persons informed the public that the company was from U.S.A. and its office was located in Mauritius which had a global licence valid till 2012. According to prosecution, after duping the people, all the three persons fled and website in question was closed. During investigation, the investigating agency got details of 41 persons, who were duped of the money invested by them in the company. The investigating agency also recorded statements of Manager of the Hotel Maharaja Regency, who stated that accused persons had held seminars in the hotel. They had fled after duping number of investors of crores of rupees. In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, their custodial interrogation is necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. The petitions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 28, 2011 'rajpal'