In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-33543 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:23.2.2010 Papu Ram .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Ms. Harpinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered against the petitioner and his co-accused Vinod Kumar on the basis of an application made by Darshan Kaur-complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that her grand- son Harpreet Singh alias Sonu and others have been implicated in case FIR No.188 dated 16.6.2007 registered at Police Station City, Abohar for the offences under Section 302, 148 and 149 IPC. The petitioner and Vinod Kumar were known to them and they started showing false sympathy after the said FIR had been registered. They represented that they have close relations with Police high-ups and they would get an inquiry marked to close the case. The accused took them to Chandigarh and Ferozepur to show that an inquiry was being marked and they had to meet higher Police Cr. Misc. No.M-33543 of 2009 [2] officials. In this manner, they wasted a lot of money of the complainant. They did not meet any officer nor any inquiry was started. Under a conspiracy, the complainant was informed that a few days earlier they had got an inquiry marked from DIG which is to be inquired into but due to elections it would be delayed. For the said purpose, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was taken. After the elections, they took another amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which was withdrawn by Jaspal Singh, the son of the complainant on 17.6.2008 from his Bank account with the Bank of India. However, the FIR against the grand-son of the complainant was not closed. In the legal opinion recorded by District Attorney (Legal), Ferozepur, it has been found that the complainant-Darshan Kaur had not given any strong documentary proof regarding payment of money to the accused persons. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- is shown to have been withdrawn by Jaspal Singh from his Bank account; besides the statement of daughter-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur has been recorded which is to the effect that the petitioner along with Vinod Kumar had come to the house of the complainant and taken the amount from them. The said aspect is required to be considered and gone into after evidence has been led. The petitioner is a Constable and it is to be ascertained whether a Constable would be in a position to get FIR in respect of an offence of murder closed by getting an inquiry conducted. The co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Vinod Kumar was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2009. The said order was made absolute vide order dated 10.12.2009 subject to Vinod Kumar furnishing a security of Rs.65,000/- before the Investigating Officer and further subject to the Cr. Misc. No.M-33543 of 2009 [3] conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is a Constable, it would be just and expedient if the interim bail granted on 23.12.2009 is made absolute. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the interim bail granted on 23.12.2009 is made absolute subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. February 23, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*