IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23562 of 2009 Date of decision : October 08, 2009 Mandeep Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Pursuant to order of the preceding date, Mr. S.S.Gill, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana is present in Court and tenders apology for non appearance of any police official to assist State Government on the preceding two dates of hearing. His apology is accepted and he is accordingly discharged. Mandeep Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 43 dated 22.2.2009 under sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Division No. 5/EO Wing, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Vriddhi Consultants Company owned by petitioner's co- accused Keshav Kumar entered into an agreement with Data Infosys Criminal Misc. No. M-23562 of 2009 -2- Limited for supply of workers to call centres. Data Infosys Limited was to pay Rs 100/- per person to Keshav Kumar. However, Keshav Kumar and the petitioner collected several lacs of rupees from around 400 persons ranging from Rs 5000/- to Rs 8000/- each on the assurance that they would be provided jobs in Punjab State Electricity Board and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and forged call letters were also issued to the said persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount was received by Keshav Kumar and not by the petitioner. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because some cheques might have been issued in favour of Vriddhi Consultants Company of Keshav Kumar as the agreement was in its favour. However, there are allegations that the amount was in fact paid to the petitioner as well. There are also allegations that the petitioner and Keshav Kumar were both acting in consonance with each other. In view of the aforesaid serious allegations but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 08, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'