In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-8080 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:23.3.2011 Santosh Rani .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The FIR in the case was registered on the complaint of Kuldeep Rai, who has alleged that the petitioner and her sons Rajiv Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar had cheated him. It is alleged that Jai Dev son of the complainant had passed Hotel Management course and was interested to go abroad for some work. The petitioner is a relative of the complainant and she informed the complainant that her two sons i.e. Rajiv Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were in Italy. On their representation, the petitioner is said to have paid `5,75,000/- to the petitioner for sending her son abroad. On 1.4.2009, the petitioner and her son Sanjiv Kumar put the son of the complainant, Cr. Misc. No.M-8080 of 2011 [2] namely, Jai Dev on a flight for Italy from Raja Sansi Airport, Amritsar. On reaching Italy, Rajiv Kumar took Jai Dev with him. It is alleged by the complainant that on reaching there, the accused as per promise with him did not get any job for his son and after remaining in Italy for one month, he came back to India because remaining in Italy without agreement is illegal. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Jai Dev, the son of the petitioner was given work permit for the period from 20.3.2009 till 14.12.2009, however, he came back after one month. In the facts and circumstances, it is to be ascertained whether the petitioner can be said to have cheated the complainant as the son of the complainant had admittedly got the work permit in Italy for the period from 20.3.2009 to 14.12.2009. These aspects are to be considered by the Investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be. In the facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. March 23, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*