CRM-M-23981-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23981-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:12.08.2011. Rita Rattan Bhattacharya ...Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rakesh Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for the U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Bipan Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.302 dated 16.07.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector-34, Chandigarh. The petitioner is the Director of a company, namely, ACME Career World Private Limited, SCO Nos.218-219, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. The allegation is that the complainant had given `9,00,000/- in all, out of which some money was paid to Aroop Bhattacharya (husband of the petitioner) and rest to her but despite that the complainant was not given the work permit for Canada as promised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in Delhi Public School, VIP Road, Zirakpur as a Counsellor (Annexure P-2) on a monthly salary of `8,000/-. He further submits that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the money was paid to one Ramesh Dutt of Speed Network, CRM-M-23981-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: Sector-34A, Chandigarh. He further submits that the petitioner is having a 5 years' old male child and there is nobody to look after him in case of her arrest because her co-accused Aroop Bhattacharya is already in custody. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, has submitted that there are 11 complaints against the aforesaid company which has been indulging in siphoning off hard earned money of the people in the name of providing work permit and visa for various countries. He further submits that the investigation in this case is still going on and the other co- accused have not been arrested so far. After taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 12, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE