CRM-M-18764-2011 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18764-2011 Date of decision:25.08.2011. Surinder Singh @ Shinda and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.147 dated 16.05.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The FIR is registered by Roop Singh Thakur in which he has alleged that the petitioners, in connivance with co-accused/ non- applicant, took him into confidence that they have been investing money in the share market and are earning huge profit. Being allured in the greed of earning profit, the complainant, who is working on a petrol pump, had withdrawn `1,00,000/- on 25.01.2010 from his Account No.18790 of Indian Overseas Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar and arranged a sum of `50,000/- in cash on the same day and handed it over to Surinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and his wife Laddi (petitioner No.2) at his own house in the presence of Daler Singh and Kishan Chand, resident of Gopal Nagar, Amritsar. On 19.02.2010, he again withdrew `1,00,000/- from the aforesaid bank account and handed it over to Laddi (petitioner No.2) at 9.30 p.m. in the presence of Daler Singh and others. After the CRM-M-18764-2011 [ 2 ] :::::::: payment of `2,50,000/-, the complainant was supremely confident that his money would be invested by the petitioners in the share market and he would start getting profit, but after waiting for six months, when he requested the petitioners to give share certificates, neither the share certificates were given nor his money was returned. Ultimately, the present FIR was lodged on the ground of cheating and fraud. Faced with these allegations, the petitioners applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide its order dated 04.06.2011 on the ground that the said amount of `2,50,000/- is yet to be recovered. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and during the pendency thereof the complainant was also impleaded as a party/respondent. The petitioners were granted interim anticipatory bail and were asked to join the investigation. It is alleged by the petitioners that they had only taken a loan of `20,000/- from the complainant against which they had already paid `60,000/- as interest and the principal amount is still due. Nothing has been mentioned in the bail application as to when the loan of `20,000/- was taken and how `60,000/- has been calculated as interest. Learned State Counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the petitioners have been taking different stands before the Court and before the Investigating Officer because there they have said that they had taken a loan of `1,25,000/- from the complainant @ 10% per annum and had already paid `1,80,000/- to him. From the aforesaid facts, one thing is clear that the petitioners are in financial relationship with the complainant and this matter can only be investigated thoroughly if the petitioners are taken into custody. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the present petition is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 20.07.2011 is hereby vacated. August 25, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE