Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) CRL .M. No. 20525 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M. No. M -11297 of 2011
(2.) THE present petition filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in case FIR No. 5, dated 9.1.2010, Annexure P1, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which application for anticipatory bail filed by Petitioner -accused was dismissed. This is second application for anticipatory bail filed by Petitioner -accused before this Court. He first approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide detailed order dated 13.3.2010. Then he filed application for anticipatory bail before this Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vide order dated 16.9.2010, passed in Crl.M. No. M -8301 of 2010.
(3.) BRIEF allegations against Petitioner -accused are that he alongwith his co -accused has cheated complainant as well as Joginder Singh and they obtained Rs. 14,70,000/ - from complainant Joginder Singh on the pretext of sending them abroad. Disclosure statement was suffered by one of the accused Charanjit Kumar during investigation and as per his statement lacs were taken by Petitioner as his share. There are allegations that Petitioner alongwith co -accused had given an advertisement that they are running a travel agency in the name of Balaji Consultants for arranging passport, visa and work permit etc. for sending people abroad and pursuant to that advertisement, complainant and Joginder Singh approached them and thereafter, they visited complainant and Joginder Singh several times and agreed to send them abroad, i.e. America via Japan, and demanded Rs. 20,00,000/ -. As per allegations, Petitioner accused alongwith his co -accused, in fact, had obtained Rs. 14,70,000/ - and only Rs. 55,000/ - were returned by the present applicant.;