PARMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 264 dated 19.12.2011 under sections 420, 506, 120 -B I.P.C. (later on sections 465, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. were added), registered at Police Station, City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

(2.) THE F.I.R. in question was registered on the complaint of Tehal Singh son of Surat Singh with the allegations that the present petitioner as also co -accused namely Vikas Sharma, Radhika, Sachin Kumar Mathur, Harnek Singh and Daler Singh have duped him of a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/ - on the pretext of sending his son namely Gurpinder Singh to Canada. The specific allegations are that the complainant had come in contact with co -accused Harnek Singh as also Daler Singh and these two persons had taken an advance of Rs. 1,80,000/ - with a promise to send his son to Canada. Thereafter, the afore -noticed two persons instead of sending son of the complainant to Canada introduced him to the present petitioner and who in turn invited the complainant to visit her at Mohali. Complainant further alleges that having reached Mohali, a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/ - was settled so as to facilitate sending his son to Canada and which included all documentation pertaining to citizenship/Green Card etc. Categoric assertions are that the present petitioner and Vikas Sharma in the first instance took an amount of Rs. 5 lacs and the balance was taken in Village Mallanwal and Ferozepur City. Complainant alleges that his son was instead sent to Malaysia via Thailand and that also by resorting to illegal means. Son of the complainant is stated to have reached back to his village in Punjab after great hardship. It is against such brief factual backdrop noticed herein above that the complaint had been lodged by Tehal Singh, complainant to the police authorities.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel upon instructions from ASI Sukhminder Singh would apprise the Court that even though the present petitioner has since joined investigation but the recovery of such a huge amount is yet to be made.