CRM No.M-22553 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-27.9.2010 Gurinder Singh s/o Naib Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Gurinder Singh son of Naib Singh, has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his other co- accused, namely, Naib Singh and Nirmal Singh, vide FIR No.74 dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 PC by the police of Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that father of the petitioner asked the complainant that he can arrange to send his son Parminder Singh abroad (Italy) through some travel agent in case he makes payment of Rs.8 lacs in this respect. As the complainant was short of funds, therefore, he agreed to execute the sale deed of one acre of land in his favour. Consequently, the complainant executed the agreement to sell (Annexure P2) and sale deed (Annexure P3) of one acre of land in favour of Manjit Kaur wife of Naib Singh accused. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that Naib Singh and his other co-accused Nirmal Singh son of Santokh Singh cheated the complainant. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that CRM No.M-22553 of 2010 2 he accompanied his father to the house of the complainant. No other overt act or specific role is attributed to the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Balbir Singh, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner described 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 assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in this context. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that Naib Singh and Nirmal Singh, co- accused of the petitioner cheated the complainant. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he accompanied his father to the house of the complainant. The petitioner is a young son of main accused Naib Singh. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The main argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that since the petition for anticipatory bail filed by Naib Singh co- accused of the petitioner, has been dismissed, so, the present petitioner is also not entitled to same concession, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As indicated earlier, there are direct allegations against the main accused Naib Singh that he hatched the criminal conspiracy with the travel agent Nirmal Singh and cheated the complainant. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied his father to the house of the complainant. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as detailed here-in-above 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 present petition for anticipatory bail is allowed in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. CRM No.M-22553 of 2010 3 9. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to state that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 27.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge