IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26459 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.9.2010 Gurmeet Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner Gurmeet Singh on the statement of Surinderpal Kaur who has alleged that the petitioner had cheated her and misled her to have physical relations and also grab her cash and jewellery. The husband of the complainant namely Surjit Singh is residing in England since 2003-04 and the complainant is residing at House No.7, Street No.4, Aman Vihar, Bhadson Road, Patiala along with her children. During the year 2004-05, the complainant received some calls on her mobile phone from an unknown person. On asking by the complainant, the said unknown person disclosed his name as Baljit Singh, a friend of her husband. He Crl. Misc. No. M-26459 of 2010 [2] (petitioner) stated that he was calling from Sahnewal. The complainant, however, did not know him and in order to avoid his calls, she changed her mobile number, but on the changed number also, calls were received. The complainant again changed her mobile phone number. Even on the changed number, the calls continued to come. In this way by and by relations developed between the complainant and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner started pressurizing the complainant to have physical relations. When their physical relations developed, the petitioner started alluring the complainant in his talk and said that she should divorce her husband as she was living alone here and her husband was not inclined to take her along outside. He stated that he would take her to the another country where they both would live a married life. The complainant came in his talk and the petitioner started demanding money from her for going abroad. Initially a sum of ` 60,000/- cash was given to the petitioner by the complainant at the bus stand Zirakpur. At that time, the complainant was accompanied by her niece Harmanpreet and the money was given in her presence, which the petitioner took and left. Thereafter, the petitioner took `20-21 lacs from the complainant and also took her ornaments worth ` 1.5 to 2 lacs. The said money was received by the complainant from her husband who was abroad. The petitioner had been taking money for about two months on one pretext or the other, which he used to take from the complainant at the bus stand Zirakpur. The complainant was accompanied by her niece when she gave the money. Thereafter for going abroad, Crl. Misc. No. M-26459 of 2010 [3] the petitioner demanded ` 6 lacs for completing the papers. He asked the complainant to sell the house in which she was residing but the complainant told him that it was not in her name. When the complainant refused to pay more money then with effect from January 2009, his mobile calls stopped coming. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact the petitioner on his mobile number but the petitioner refused to speak and some other person used to speak. Once the complainant gave her mobile number for recharge and after half an hour, she received a call from the person who had recharged her mobile. The said person informed the complainant that Gurmeet Singh (petitioner) had asked him to confirm after re-charge. The petitioner has been representing himself as Baljit Singh resident of Sahnewal, but in fact his real name was Gurmeet Singh (petitioner) son of Harchand Singh, Flat No.1476, Silver City, Zirakpur (Mohali). The complainant asked the said person for return of her cash and jewellery which had been taken. Then the said person stated that he knew the complainant that she was resident of Patiala but he did not take any cash or jewellery from her. It was, therefore, requested that after hearing at personal level a case be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the allegations of extracting ` 20-21 lacs and jewellery worth ` 2 lacs are absolutely baseless and the complainant has not disclosed any source from where the amount was received. It is submitted that the petitioner is living a happy married life with his family and the story put forth by the Crl. Misc. No. M-26459 of 2010 [4] complainant is only to extract money from him. Otherwise, the petitioner has no link with the complainant. The petitioner is a married person of 29 years of age whereas the complainant is also a married lady of 40 years of age and has two children. Therefore, it is submitted that the story as set up by the complainant is false. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the complainant used to get money from her husband and she had paid ` 60,000/- to the petitioner at Zirakpur bus stand and at that time, the complainant was accompanied by her niece Harmanpreet. Thereafter, also the complainant gave money to the petitioner from time to time. In all, the petitioner is alleged to have taken ` 20-21 lacs; besides, jewellery worth ` 2 lacs. It is submitted that the said amount is to be recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the custodial interrogation is necessary. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that an inquiry was conducted by the Police on an application filed by the petitioner. It is after a detailed inquiry that the case was registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner had developed physical relations with her and also extracted huge amount of money, besides jewellery from her. Recovery of the jewellery and the amount which is said to have been taken from the complainant is to be effected. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. M-26459 of 2010 [5] It is made clear that in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the police authorities of his innocence, the police is not bound to arrest him. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 21, 2010 amit