Crl. Misc. No.M-18644 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-18644 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.08.2010 Garib Dass & anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.137 dated 27.05.2010 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana. It is contended that the complainant-Ajay Kumar had constituted a Company along with Anish Sharma, the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2. The said company was registered in Australia. The complainant was a Director in the said company and the money deposited by the him in the account of the son of the petitioner was Crl. Misc. No.M-18644 of 2010 2 in lieu of his share in the said company. Thereafter, the complainant resigned on 02.12.2009. Thus, the dispute is of civil dispute. Learned counsel for the State, as well as, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the bail and stated that the petitioners are habitual offenders. They have cheated many people. Number of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending against them besides an FIR No.100 dated 17.04.2010 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC has also been registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Khanna. The allegations in the FIR are serious. As per the allegations, the son of petitioner No.1 had asked the complainant to arrange an amount of Rs.75 lacs to settle the complainant in Australia on the basis of business. Accordingly, he arranged money from different sources and sent Rs.1,29,000/- Australian Dollars i.e. Rs.55,00,000/- approximately from his HDFC Bank. The said amount has since been credited in the account of Anish Sharma at Sydney Branch, Australia. Another amount of Rs.25,00,000/- were received by both the petitioners No.1 and 2. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- stand transferred from the saving account of Ajay Kumar into the account of Garib Dass Sharma, petitioner No.1 in the HDFC Bank, Khanna Branch. The said amount has further been transferred by petitioner No.1 in the account of his son-Anish Sharma. This is evident from the certificate dated 16.12.2009 issued by the HDFC Bank and is placed on record. Thus, there is enough evidence to show that the money has been transferred from the account of the complainant in the account of Anish Sharma and the petitioner No.1 as alleged. The fact that the present petitioners being the father and brother are a party in the whole scheme and in the knowledge of the transactions and promises made by Anish Sharma is evident from the fact that the money has also passed from the accounts of the complainant to the Crl. Misc. No.M-18644 of 2010 3 account of petitioner No.1. The complainant has been cheated of a huge amount of Rs.80,00,000/- by the son of petitioner No.1 with connivance of present petitioners. Number of complaints under Section 138 of the amended Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC are pending against petitioner No.1 in different Courts filed by M/s Bedi General Marketing (P) Ltd., (pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana), Budh Parkash son of Mehar Chand (pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Khanna), Karnail Singh son of Joginder Singh (S.D.J.M., Khanna). An FIR No.100 dated 17.04.2010 under Sections 323/324/34 at Police Station City Khanna, District Khanna has also been registered against the present petitioners No.1 and 2. The mother of petitioner No.2 and wife of petitioner No.1 is granted the concession of bail by an order of even date as no allegation is alleged against her. However, in view of the above facts, it is not a case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 13.08.2010 JUDGE gurpreet