Suraj Kumar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-12663-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:036471

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12663-2024 Decided on:12.03.2024 Suraj Kumar .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.73 dated 21.04.2022 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi District Kapurthala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case; rather he himself has been cheated by the co-accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is running a NGO in the name of "EK Umeed Beginning Humanity", and being a social worker, thus, he has no connection with the crime in question. Learned counsel has still further submitted that he never received any amount of money from the complainant and furthermore, it is highly unbelievable that such a huge amount of money i.e. Rs.10 lacs would have been handed over by the complainant to the petitioner in cash. Learned counsel has submitted that the story put-forth by the complainant can also not be digested as it is a SONIA BURA 2024.03.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-12663-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:036471 matter of record that his own mother was a government employee and would have been aware that government jobs could not be procured by giving any money. It has also been submitted that nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioner and hence, his custodial interrogation would also not be necessitated in the present case. 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.

4.

A perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, reveals that it was the petitioner at whose behest the complainant was duped into parting with huge amount of money on the pretext of procuring a government job (Railways) for him; the involvement of the petitioner in another case of identical nature indicates that it is not only the complainant of the instant case, who had been duped by the petitioner but the petitioner had been playing similar fraud upon many innocent persons.

5.

In the circumstances and keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, the petitioner does not deserve the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 12.03.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.03.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document