Crl. Misc. No. M-9593 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9593 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.3.2011 Swaran Kumar @ Sawarn Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur, vide FIR No.21 dated 11th February, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has no concern with any alleged transaction between the complainant and co-accused Buta Singh and Rakesh Kumar. He submits that in fact, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and is thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The complaint was lodged by Narain Singh who stated that Buta Singh of village Toki in Himachal Pradesh is serving in the Army. Buta Singh was well known to him who disclosed that he himself and Rakesh Kumar had good approach in government department. Together Crl. Misc. No. M-9593 of 2011 they had got recruited many people in Railways. In case complainant wanted to get his son recruited, they could help. Thereafter, he talked his Rajan Kumar and his relative Armanpreet Singh. His son and Armanpreet Singh is +2 pass. Buta Singh and Rakesh Kumar came to his house and deal was struck at Rs.5.00 lacs each. On 2nd August, 2009, Buta Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Sarwan Kumar and his wife Mamta came to his house and he told them that he would pay the money at village Kharal, District Gurdaspur and then they all alongwith Rajan Kumar went to the house of Armanpreet Singh and above said accused Buta Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Swaran Kumar and Mamta took Rs.13,50,000/- from them in the presence of Satnam Singh. After money was handed over, the complainants were assured that they would be recruited in the Railway department. In January, all the persons, namely Kuldip Singh, Rajan Kumar and Armanpreet Singh were taken to Calcutta. There they learnt that there was no proposal of their recruitment in the Railways. For going to Calcutta and arranging boarding, lodging etc., the complainants had to spend another Rs.50,000/-. In view of the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.3.2011 'rajpal'