Crl.M.No.M-13438 of 2008 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-13438 of 2008 Date of Decision : 1.8.2008. Mohinder Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.33 dated 5.3.2008 under Sections 406/420 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, P.S.Kotwali, District Kapurthala. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Balkar Singh against Mohinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as far back on 5.5.2005, the petitioner has sworn an affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate, to the effect that his son Sukhwinder Singh is in bad company and is not under his control, therefore, he disinherits him from his moveable and immoveable property and whosoever shall deal with him, shall be solely responsible. It is further declared therein that he has no relationship with him whereas allegations in this case are with regard to cheating on the pretext of sending complainant Crl.M.No.M-13438 of 2008 -2 - and Balkar Singh to England against an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that both of them were sent to Thailand for a short period but could not be sent to England as promised. Counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail for the reason that there is another FIR No.137 dated 6.9.2007 registered against him under Sections 420/34 IPC and that his son Sukhwinder Singh is absconding. Counsel for the petitioner in controversion, submitted that so far as the aforesaid FIR No.137 is concerned, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the Court of JMIC Batala vide order dated 4.12.2007 and so far as Sukhwinder Singh is concerned, it is stated that he has already disowned him about three years prior to the registration of the FIR. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that even FIR under Sections 406, 420 IPC together can not be registered. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping in view of the age of the deceased, who is stated to be 61 years of age and is a farmer, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds with heavy surety to the satisfaction of trial Court. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 1.8.2008 Judge Meenu