Punjab-Haryana High Court
Payara Lal vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2012
Crl. M. No. M- 38928 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 38928 of 2011
Date of decision : 03.02.2012
Payara Lal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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?
Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG, Punjab
for the State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J .
This is a petition brought by Payara Lal, petitioner under the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 55 dated 22.08.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur for an offence punishable under section 420 IPC.
The case against the petitioner, briefly put, is that Varinder Kumar son of Jaspal Singh had passed 10+2 and was unemployed. Payara Lal, petitioner, his co-villager in March 2010 came to Jaspal Singh, complainant and told him that he had great approach and that he could get his son employed in police or army and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from him Crl. M. No. M- 38928 of 2011 2 for the job. Since the complainant is a poor person, he settled the matter for Rs.1,50,000/- and this amount was arranged by the complainant and was given to the petitioner on 17.04.2010 alongwith the copies of testimonials of Varinder Singh. The petitioner then failed to get a job for the son of the complainant and when the amount was demanded back, he refused even to return the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a poor peon and he was not in a position to arrange employment for anyone. According to him, this very fact shows that the case against him is false. He has further submitted that the complainant is also a poor person and it is highly unbelievable that he had arranged Rs.1,50,000/- for the job of his son. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.
According to him, nothing is beyond the means of a person if it comes to a matter of job for his son. According to him, there is nothing doubtful in the prosecution version and since nothing has been recovered from the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail.
The complainant may be a poor person but when son of a poor person wanders unemployed, he gears up his resources and gives money to a person, who promises employment to him. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is not such a heavy amount, which cannot be believed to be arranged even by a poor person. There is nothing on the record to suggest Crl. M. No. M- 38928 of 2011 3 any reason for false implication of the petitioner. Mere joining of investigation would not give the petitioner a right to be on anticipatory bail when no amount has been recovered from him.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not appear to be entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
03.02.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge