CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M) ::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.08.2011. Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.08.2011. Harmesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.08.2011. Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (4) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.08.2011. Balbir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M) ::::::: Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of four petitions bearing CRM-M-20650- 2011 titled as `Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab', CRM-M-20651-2011 titled as `Harmesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab', CRM-M-20652-2011 titled as `Parveen Kumari alias Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' and CRM-M-11242-2011 titled as `Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' wherein all the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in the cases bearing FIR No.63 dated 09.05.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC (CRM-M-20650-2011 & CRM-M-20651-2011), FIR No.59 dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC (CRM-M-20652-2011) and FIR No.12 dated 07.02.2011, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (CRM-M-11242-2011), all registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued in all the four cases but interim bail was granted only to Balbir Kaur in CRM-M-11242-2011. The allegations against the petitioner(s) are that they have duped the complainant(s) Sandeep Kumar for `2,00,000/- in FIR No.63, Harvinder Singh for `2,90,000/- in FIR No.59 and Kulwinder Singh for `3,46,000/- in FIR No.12, on the pretext of sending them to Kuwait on work permit where Hardeep Kumar, one of the co-accused, is living. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the aforesaid amount has been deposited in the account of Hardeep Kumar. However, it is argued that the complainant(s) were sent to Kuwait on work permit but there they could not adjust and came back. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has submitted that huge money was charged from the complainant(s) for sending them to Kuwait on work permit, whereas they were sent there on tourist visa. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has failed to produce even, prima facie, evidence with regard to sending the complainant(s) to Kuwait on work permit, rather the passport of one of the complainants shows that he has got the visa for Kuwait for three months only and nothing was mentioned therein that it is on account of work permit. Hence, at this stage it appears that CRM-M-20650-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-20651-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-20652-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-11242-2011 (O&M) ::::::: the complainant(s) were sent to Kuwait not on work permit but on tourist visa. Thus, without making any observation on the merits of the case(s), I do not find these cases fit for grant of anticipatory bail as the money is yet to be recovered. Hence, all the four petitions are hereby dismissed. Resultantely, the interim order dated 19.04.2011 granted in CRM-M-11242-2011 stands vacated. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. August 19, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge