In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008
Date of decision: 16.2.2009
Piara Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by Piara Singh-petitioner
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 4 dated 17.1.2007, under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police
Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.
The allegation against the petitioner, in the First
Information Report, is that he along with his son Harpreet Singh had
taken Rs.5,50,000/- from complainant Nirmal Singh for sending his
nephew Jarnail Singh abroad. However, neither Jarnail Singh was
sent abroad nor the money had been returned to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had made a complaint against the complainant on 4.9.2006
and after due enquiry FIR No.38 dated 28.3.2007 was registered
against complainant Nirmal Singh under Section 420 IPC at Police
Station, Kartarpur. The allegation in the said complaint made by the
petitioner was that complainant Nirmal Singh had taken
Rs.4,50,000/- from the petitioner for sending his relative Sukhdev
Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008 -2-
Singh abroad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a
counter blast, complainant Nirmal Singh filed the complaint on
16.12.2006 against the petitioner, which resulted in registration of
FIR in question. He has further submitted that the son of the
petitioner Harpreet Singh has been allowed regular bail by this Court
on 23.12.2008
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed
the petition for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the
complainant had sold his land on 29.3.2005 and had paid money to
the petitioner and his co-accused on 3.4.2005.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
The allegation mentioned in the complaint filed by the
petitioner is that he had paid Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant for
sending his relative abroad. It is a debatable question whether the
petitioner would pay such a huge amount for sending his relative
abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of
arguments, could not specify the exact relationship of Sukhdev Singh
with the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he
along with his co-accused had taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the
complainant for sending his nephew abroad.
Criminal Misc. No.M-33360 of 2008 -3-
Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to
have been committed by the petitioner, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
February 16, 2009
anita