IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl.Misc.No.M-9678 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2010 Gurjeet Kaur …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent 2. Crl.Misc.No.M-13877 of 2010 Nirmal Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S. Pannu, Advocate for the petitioner (Crl.Misc. No.M-9678/2010) Mr.S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner (Crl.Misc. No.M-13877/2010) Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: Both the above-mentioned petitions having been arisen out of the same FIR are being disposed of by this common order. These petitions have been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under sections 406/420/34 IPC vide FIR No.20 dated 1.3.2010 at police station Kotkapura Sadar, District Faridkot. Crl.Misc.Nos.M-9678 & 13877 of 2010 - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that main allegations in the case pertain to Bahadur Singh. The petitioners have no role to play in the commission of crime and are thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that during investigation it was established that petitioners were intimately involved in the commission of crime. According to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of instant petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. One Sajjan Singh stated that petitioners promised to send his son abroad expenses for which would be Rs.7.5 lacs. The complainant handed over Rs.7 lacs to the accused for arranging visa, etc. However, when there was no progress, he contacted accused, namely, Nirmal Singh and Raj Kumar. They asked him to wait for some time as normally some delay occurs in such matters. However, when no further development took place, the complainant contacted respectables of the village. Before them the accused admitted that they had taken money from the complainant with a promise to send his son Harvinder Singh abroad. As the accused failed to honour their promise, the instant FIR was lodged. It is evident that there are serious allegations against the petitioners of duping the complainant of heavy Crl.Misc.Nos.M-9678 & 13877 of 2010 - 3 - amount of money with a promise to send his son abroad. -The stand of the investigating agency before this court is that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioners are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. February 28, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE Crl.Misc.Nos.M-9678 & 13877 of 2010 - 4 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-13877 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2010 Nirmal Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: For orders, see Crl. Misc.No.9678 of 2010 titled as Gurjeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab. February 28, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE