Amrik Singh @ Vicky v. State Of Punjab

CRM No.M-2266 of 2015 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M- 2266 of 2015(O&M) Date of Decision: January 22, 2015.

Amrik Singh @ Vicky ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in FIR No.5 dated 10.01.2015, under Section 420 IPC and Section 4/5 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, registered at police station Balia Wali, District Bathinda.

It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has no concern with the lucky draw scheme. No action had been taken on the complaint since February, 2014 and it is only when a subsequent application was moved that action has been taken at a belated stage in an illegal manner. OMKAR SINGH 2015.01.27 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-2266 of 2015 [2] As per prosecution version, petitioner Amrik Singh @ Vicky as well as other co-accused under the garb of a lucky draw scheme played a fraud upon the complainants. They were sweet talked into parting with their money by the petitioner and co-accused who used to work at the Bus Stand on the pretext of investing in the Lucky Draw Scheme. They did not return the money/prize money as per the specific clause in the lucky draw scheme after the scheme came to be closed inDecember, 2013. When the complainants asked for their money they refused to give the same on one pretext or the other, thereby, disclosing their dishonest intention.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no concern with the said scheme cannot be accepted at this stage when investigation is still to be conducted by the police authorities. All the accused persons in this case are still at large.

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is not considered expedient to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

( LISA GILL ) January 22, 2015.

JUDGE 'om'

OMKAR SINGH 2015.01.27 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh