Crl. Misc. No. M-14353 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-14353 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.5.2011 Ram Naresh Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 & 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Rupnagar, District Ropar, vide FIR No.117 dated 31st August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is nothing on record to point towards complicity of the petitioner in the crime. He is, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The complaint was lodged by one Amrit Pal Singh who alleged that accused Ram Naresh Yadav told the villagers that he was known to Lalu Parshad Yadav, then Railway Minister. Due to his relations with the Minister, he could get people recruited in the railways. Crl. Misc. No. M-14353 of 2011 2 He demanded Rs.3 to 4 lacs for this purpose. Co-accused Archana Kumari, who is stated to be daughter-in-law of the petitioner, was introduced to the villagers as niece of Lalu Parshad Yadav. They took Rs.1.5 lacs from the complainant on 23rd May, 2008 and Rs.1,20,000/- on 3rd June, 2008. Thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting the petitioner and co-accused for 3-4 months, but they kept on putting him off. Neither a job was arranged for the complainant nor the money (Rs.2,70,000/-) was returned. The complainant, thus, approached the police through the instant complaint. It appears that the petitioner preferred anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar but the same was dismissed as petitioner failed to join investigation. In view of the seriousness of allegations and modus operandi of the crime, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre- arrest bail. In fact, his custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. Dismissed. The investigation henceforth may be conducted under the direct supervision of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 11.5.2011 'rajpal'