CRM No.M 24103 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 24103 of 2010 Date of decision: 3.12.2010 Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.SK Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.KD Sachdeva, Addl.AG, Punjab *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Jaswinder Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 318 dated 25.12.2009 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. The brief allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner-accused was appointed as a Music Teacher to teach children. Son of the complainant also used to learn music from the accused-petitioner. Hence, he started visiting house of the complainant and he was treated as a family member at the house of the complainant. He told the complainant that he knew number of persons in foreign countries and if he wanted to CRM No.M 24103 of 2010 2 expend his business, he should visit abroad. He also represented that he had sent number of persons abroad after arranging Visa. Relying upon the assurance of the petitioner-accused, the complainant agreed. The petitioner represented that Rs.50 lacs will be required for sending the complainant and his son to abroad and he also told that they would be sent abroad through Kirtan Jatha. He also represented that if he feels that it is an excess amount, he can deposit Rs.30 lacs within 5/6 months and the balance amount of Rs.20 lacs, he can arrange after reaching foreign country. He also told that he can give gold ornaments valuing Rs.20 lacs. Hence, the complainant by trusting the accused-petitioner handed over gold ornament weighing 42 tolas valuing Rs.6.5 lacs. Thereafter, he paid Rs.8 lacs on 28.10.2008, Rs.10 lacs on 20.12.2008, Rs.6 lacs on 7.1.2009, Rs.4 lacs on 16.4.2009, Rs.3.50 lacs on 9.6.2009 and Rs.8 lacs on 16.7.2009 alongwith gold ornaments weighing 42 tolas in the presence of Paramjit Kaur and Mandip Singh. On 16.1.2009 complainant and his son alongwith the petitioner-accused had visited Embassy at Delhi, where they were administered some injection by stating that the same was necessary for getting Visa. By that time, the complainant had paid Rs.24 lacs to the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs. 4 lacs on 16.4.2009, Rs.3.50 lacs on 9.6.2009 and Rs.8 lacs on 16.7.2009. Accused again asked the complainant to visit Delhi on the plea that he was to be administered another injection and also raised demand of the remaining amount and however, the complainant and his son refused to go to Delhi in the night as they felt something wrong. Further allegations are that on CRM No.M 24103 of 2010 3 28.8.2009 at about 9 O'clock, petitioner accused visited the house of the complainant. However, the complainant was not present in the house, but his son namely Lakhwinder Singh was present. The petitioner-accused alongwith his wife and son were in a car. The petitioner asked Lakhwinder Singh to accompany them to Dewan, on which he agreed. However, after crossing village Gill, they had stopped their car at a lonely place, where another car was already standing. Three masked persons got down the car and petitioner-accused, his wife and son came out of the car and pulled Lakhwinder Singh out of the car and all of them together gave him beatings. While they were giving beatings to him, some other car approached the road and hence, accused persons hid themselves and taking the benefit of the same, Lakwhinder Singh ran away from the spot, otherwise they would have killed him. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been continuing in custody since 5.2.2010 and that no witness has been examined so far. The bail of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that there are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused and that even co-accused Mandeep, who is the son of the present petitioner, is still absconding and there is likelihood that he may also abscond, if he is released on bail and that he may also pressurise the prosecution witnesses, as no witness has been examined so far. Further contends that he is the main accused. He cheated the complainant of Rs.39 lacs and 42 tolas of jewellery on the pretext of sending him abroad and that CRM No.M 24103 of 2010 4 such types of incidents are increasing in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner at this stage. There is no merit in the instant petition filed for bail by petitioner Jaswinder Singh and the same is, hereby, dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the petitioner has been continuing in custody since 5.2.2010. December 3, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE