CRM-M 10825 of 2009 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on Sept 15,2009.
Harminder Singh and another -- Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab --Respondent.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Gautam Dutt,Advocate,for the petitioners
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab
for the State/respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) apprehending
their arrest in case registered vide FIR No.17 dated 12.3.2009 under
Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station, Budhlada, District Mansa.
The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Gurmail
Singh son of Joginder Singh, who has alleged that Harminder Singh
(petitioner No.1) and his wife Surinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) are working
as agents to send people abroad and have opened a travel agency in their
house. He wanted to go to England, therefore, he alongwith Sarogha Singh
and Ajaib Singh went to their house about two years back. They told him
that he would be sent to England after Rs.,6,55,000/- is paid to them. On
30.9.2005, both the petitioners informed him that they are coming to take
CRM-M 10825 of 2009 2
his passport and to receive some payment also. On 1.10.2005, they all
went to Hargobind Tractor Agency, Bhikhi road, Budhlada, which belongs
to his real brother Daroga Singh and they took Rs.10,000/- alongwith
passport from him in the presence of Ajaib Singh. On 19.10.2005,
petitioner No.1 immediately called him to accompany him saying that his
work has been done and demanded Rs.6,45,000/-. He asked him to
accompany him to Bombay to procure visa. He reached Ludhiana
alongwith petitioner No.1 to go to Bombay and from there, they went to
Bombay alongwith one girl named Harry. The complainant reached
Bombay . He was shown his passport having visa. Thereafter, petitioner
No.1. kept the passport with him. Then he came back to arrange the
money. On 23.11.2005, petitioner No.1 asked him to come to Hargobind
agency of his brother. He reached there where petitioner No.1. showed the
passport and visa to his brother Daroga Singh, Balbir Singh and Billu Seth
on which they were satisfied. On same date, i.e. 23.11.2005, he gave
Rs.6,45,000/- in the presence of Billu Seth, Daroga Singh, and Balbir
Singh. The money was taken by both the petitioners. After two days, he
received a call from petitioner No.1. who informed that his passport has
been lost. He was taken to the Police Post for registration of D.D.R.
regarding loss of passport and visa and thereafter to Chandigarh for the
purpose of applying a new passport. But after a few months, new passport
came to his house. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and his nephew Kala Singh
took his signatures on number of blank papers and also some papers which
were typed in English which he could not understand. After 5-6 months, he
received some papers through post which were relating to a film company
opened by him alongwith petitioner No.1 in which he had a share. On
CRM-M 10825 of 2009 3
7.8.2007, he was called to appear before the Court of Senior Sub Judge,
Ludhiana. Finding no other ways, the present FIR was filed.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for
anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned
Addl.Sessions Judge, Mansa on 17.4.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that
the allegations contained in the FIR are false. In fact, the petitioners
entered into a partnership to the extent of 8% out of share of petitioner
No.1 in the partnership in which he was having 33% share. It is further
submitted that 8% share comes to Rs.25,000/- out of which the petitioners
had paid Rs.15,000/- and did not pay Rs.10,000/-,therefore, petitioner No.1
had to file a civil suit against him. As per the allegations contained in the
FIR, payment was made to petitioner No.1 on 30.11.2005 which was
arranged by the complainant by selling his tractor on 18.11.2005, taking
loan and executing the pronote on 21.11.2005 and taking loan from
Aarhtiyas on 23.11.2005.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has argued that
allegations against the petitioners are very serious in nature as they
extracted Rs.6,45,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of sending
him abroad.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the seriousness of the offences, I do not find it to be a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sept 15,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge