CRM No.M-17548 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-12.10.2010 Sarabjit Kaur alias Anu and Rajpal Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioners Sarabjit Kaur alias Anu and her father Rajpal Singh, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them and their other co-accused, vide FIR No.10 dated 29.1.2010 (Annexure P2) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Banur, Distt.Patiala, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that complainant Mewa Singh son of Bachan Singh lodged a complaint to the police authorities for registration of the case against the accused, for grabbing huge amount with allurement of sending various persons abroad by opening an agency by the name of M/s Core Immigration and Employment Consultancy, SCO 548 Sector 70, Mohali. 3. According to the complainant that the accused raised a demand of Rs.4 lacs each for sending Avtar Singh and Harpreet Singh sons of the complainant and Jagtar Singh PW abroad. They paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs each in advance in the presence of Jaspal Singh PW. The complainant gave Rs.2 lacs in cash, while PW Jagtar Singh gave a cheque of Bank of India amounting to Rs.2 CRM No.M-17548 of 2010 (O&M) 2 lacs to the accused, which Rajpal Singh accused got encashed within one week. Accused Rajpal Singh also took separate amount from Avtar Singh and Harpreet Singh for course of ILET. According to the prosecution that the accused have neither sent Avtar Singh and Harpreet Singh abroad nor returned the amount. When they visited the house of the accused for receiving back the money, then his wife, who was serving in Punjab Police at Chandigarh, threatened them with dire consequences. The accused openly declared that neither they will send their sons abroad nor the money will be returned, owing their relations with the higher officers. The complainant claimed that accused Rajpal Singh and his daughter Sarabjit Kaur and wife hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed fraud and cheated them in this relevant connection. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that as the petitioners have no connection with M/s Core Immigration and Employment Consultancy, therefore, no offence is made out against them, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioners that they hatched a criminal conspiracy, allured the complainant and Jagtar Singh to send their sons Avtar Singh and Harpreet Singh abroad, in lieu of Rs.4 lacs each. Specific part is attributed to the petitioners that they received a sum of Rs.2 lacs each from them and neither sent their sons abroad nor returned the amount. Instead of returning the money, they threatened them with dire consequences. CRM No.M-17548 of 2010 (O&M) 3 8. During the course of pendency of instant petition, the petitioners took various adjournments to pay the amount to the complainant, but ultimately, today their learned counsel has flatly refused to make the payment. In this view of the matter, since the police has to unearth the scam of sending various other persons abroad by receiving money by illegal means and cheated them. Therefore, to me, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required at this stage. 9. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioners are allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 10. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to my mind, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 12.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge