Kulbhindir Singh @ Bhinder vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.126 dated 4.10.2020 at

Police Station Rahon, District SBS Nagar, Nawashehar under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional

Regulation Act and Section 24 of Emigration Act, wherein it is alleged that the complainant Tehal Singh was introduced to Satnam Singh by Angrej

Singh and Bhinder Singh of his village, who represented that the complainant could be sent to Greece for an amount of `6 lakhs. The complainant

alleged that he entered into an agreement for sale of his land and received an amount of `6 lakhs and thereafter when Angrej Singh, Bhinder Singh and

Satnam Singh came to his house, he paid the said amount of `6 lakhs to Satnam Singh and also his passport and other documents. However, the

petitioner was sent to Armania and another demand of money was raised from the parents of the complainant, which was paid through Moneygram.

However, the complainant was left to fend for himself and ultimately had to return back to India from Armania. Thereafter, the complainant met

Satnam Singh, who assured that he would return the entire amount and issued a cheque of `6 lakhs, which upon its presentation was dishonoured.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken to be correct, still it is only a case

where the petitioner had merely accompanied Satnam Singh and that there is no allegations whatsoever to the effect that it is the petitioner, who had

made any representation regarding sending the complainant abroad or had ever accepted any amount from the complainant. It has further been

submitted that the very fact that it is the co-accused Satnam Singh, who had issued a cheque for refund of the amount, itself shows that it is co-

accused Satnam Singh, who had defrauded the complainant.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and had introduced the

complainant to Satnam Singh, his complicity is clearly evident.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

The FIR does show that it is the petitioner and one Angrej Singh, who had introduced the complainant to Satnam Singh. However, it is Satnam

Singh, who is the main accused, who had accepted the amount of `6 lakhs after representing that he could send the complainant to Greece but the

complainant was sent to Armania and was never sent to Greece.

Further the cheque issued by Satnam Singh for refund of the amount has since been dihonoured. In these circumstances, it is apparent that it is

Satnam Singh, who is the main accused and has defrauded the complainant. The role and complicity of the petitioner would be debatable. In these

circumstance, this Court does not find the present case to be a case which would warrant custodial interrogation. The petition, as such, is accepted

and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of arrest, be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with

the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.