CRM -M No. 34334 of 2009 Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab Present: Mr. D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab. *** This is a petition for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 265 dated 23.10.2009 under Section 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, registered at Police Station Tarn Taran, Distict Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations, if any, have been levelled only against Bodh Raj. The petitioner was roped in by the device of getting incorporated in the FIR that the said Bodh Raj gave some money to the petitioner also. Learned counsel has further stated that the entire family including the wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law have been roped in. Further argued that originally the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted stay of arrest and during that interregnum the petitioner had joined investigation. On the contrary leaned Senior DAG has emphasised the fact that the petitioner has been named not only in this FIR but in two other FIRs as well. He has argued that a large number of cases registered against the petitioner reveal that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. It is true that persons accused of serious crimes like obtaining money from innocent people to send them abroad do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. However, in the present case one fact which stands out, is that the said Bodh Raj who is the main accused was CRM -M No. 34334 of 2009 -2- arrested and has now been bailed out. I have further perused the zimnis and I find that even during the custodial interrogation of aforesaid Bodh Raj or during the statement suffered by the petitioner when he joined investigation nothing has been brought out against the petitioner which may disentitle him for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. In the circumstances this application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner he is ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 10, 2009 sunita