Lashkar Ram v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-4808-2019(O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4808-2019(O & M) Date of Decision:09.07.2019 Lashkar Ram

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Abhimanyu Vinayak, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.192 dated 10.12.2018 under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Travel Professional and Regulation Act, registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar. The petitioner apprehended his arrest at the hands of Police.

FIR was registered on a complaint given by Manjinder Singh, wherein it was alleged that he was desirous to go abroad. According to the complainant, he came to know about petitioner-Lashkar Ram, who used to send people abroad on work permit and for the said purpose, a sum of `32 lacs was demanded from the complainant. According to him, the amount was to be paid after sending him abroad within a period of 40 days. The complainant had given all the requisite papers such as passport, PAN Card, Sheetal Gawri 2019.07.20 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-4808-2019(O & M) -2Bank statement etc. to enable the accused to apply for visa. It was mentioned that when the complainant demanded the visa, accused had asked for the money. As per the complainant, on 01.08.2017, a sum of `6 lacs in cash was paid in the presence of other villagers. However, the accused neither returned his papers nor gave him the visa and his amount was also not returned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has entered into a compromise with the complainant.

Mr. Abhimanyu Vinayak, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has produced the photocopy of the affidavit dated 06.07.2019 sworn in by Manjinder Singh and affirms that indeed the compromise has arrived at between the parties. Considering above, this Court is of the opinion that in the given facts, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 09.07.2019 (MANOJ BAJAJ) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Sheetal Gawri 2019.07.20 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh