LAWS(P&H)-2021-10-72

GURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 04, 2021
GURINDER PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.180 dtd. 21/6/2013 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City under Ss. 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Ss. 465, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 201 of IPC were added later on.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jatinder Singh, wherein the allegations are broadly to the effect that the petitioner had held out a representation to the complainant that he could send him to America. The complainant and his cousin Harinder Singh entered into an agreement with the accused for sending them to America in return for an amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs per person. It is alleged that thereafter they gave their passports, photographs and an amount of Rs.3.00lakhs to the petitioner and his son Davroop Singh. It is alleged that subsequently the petitioner and his son asked for another amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs towards expenditure and consequently the said amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs was paid to Gurinderpal Singh (petitioner) and to his son Davroop Singh and Gurinderpal Singh promised that the work would be done within 15 days and that the remaining amount may be paid later after they are sent to America. However, the complainant and his cousin were not sent abroad and when they demanded their amount back, the accused kept on dilly dallying the matter and rather threatened to implicate them falsely.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and a written agreement is alleged to have been entered into amongst the complainant and the accused and when the said agreement was sent for comparing the signatures of the petitioner with his standard signatures to FSL, it was reported initially that the signatures were found to be tallying. However, when the petitioner agitated the matter, the matter was again sent to FSL and it transpired that the earlier report was infact a fabricated and forged report and that the FSL had infact reported that the signatures did not tally.