Crl. Misc. -M No. 23758 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 23758 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.9.2011 Gurbux Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.95 dated 19.7.2011 which has been registered under Section 420 IPC with the allegations that one Kuldeep Sharma had taken ` 27.50 lacs from different persons assuring Govt. job to them in Forest Department. The FIR was registered on a preliminary enquiry conducted by S.P.(D) Barnala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been named either in the complaint filed to the police by one Mela Singh or in the enquiry conducted by S.P.(D) Barnala. He has been falsely implicated and is sought to be arrested now whereas there are no allegations against him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in addition to the persons, who are named in the complaint filed by Mela Singh alleging payment of money for employment, statement of certain other persons were also recorded, who specifically said that some of them paid money to the petitioner as well. In fact, link of the petitioner with Kuldeep Sharma the main accused, is evident from the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court alleging that Kuldeep Sharma had been illegally detained by the police. The petitioner is resident of village Tolawal, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur whereas Kuldeep Sharma is resident of Patiala. Crl. Misc. -M No. 23758 of 2011 -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts where number of persons have been cheated by assuring them Govt. job on payment of money, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 5.9.2011 Judge Meenu