CRM-M-29265-2011 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29265-2011 Date of decision:07.12.2011 Kaushyala Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. D.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.83 dated 15.04.2011, under Sections 420 & 406 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 at Police Station City, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused had taken a sum of `15,74,600/- from the complainant on the pretext of sending his son to Canada on a work permit. The case set up by the petitioner is that she is a housewife and has been falsely implicated. While issuing notice, interim bail was granted to her. On one of the dates, the learned State Counsel was directed to verify the fact as to whether the complainant really possess a passport or not. Learned State Counsel has stated that the son of the complainant possessed the passport which was given to the petitioner and other co-accused. According to the story of the prosecution, the money was taken by the petitioner and CRM-M-29265-2011 [ 2 ] :::::::: co-accused on different dates for the purpose of sending the son of the complainant to Canada on work permit but neither he was sent to Canada nor the money was returned, whereas the leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant was a franchise of the company of the petitioner's husband who has been investing money in the gold. It is argued by learned State Counsel that none of the accused has been arrested so far and the entire recovery is yet to be effected. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the record. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case wherein the interim bail granted to the petitioner can be confirmed. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 03.10.2011 is hereby vacated. December 07, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE