2010 Sama Masih alias Sham Masih v. State of Punjab Present

Heard counsel for the parties. .. Petitioner .. Respondents The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 27.07.2010 for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur. The FIR (Annexure P-1) in the case has been registered on the complaint of Manjeet Singh who has inter alia alleged that his younger son Navpreet Singh who was unemployed and did agricultural work had got friendly to one Tarsem Masih who was a barber. The son of the complainant frequently started visiting the shop of Tarsem Masih. On

16.09.2009, Tarsem Masih represented to the son of the complainant that his father-in-law (Sama Masih-petitioner) was a Government/authorized travel agent and by getting visas in accordance with law sends people abroad. He represented that since Navpreet Singh was unemployed why should not he be sent abroad. Navpreet Singh son of the complainant believed his words and gave his consent for the proposal. After two days Tarsem Masih took the complainant and his son to the house of Sama Masih (petitioner). Sama Masih (petitioner) during his conversation took Crl. Misc. No.M-33691 of 2010 ::2:: the complainant and his son Navpreet Singh into confidence. He represented that he was a Govt. authorized agent and would send Navpreet Singh to New Zealand within a few days and for this he demanded Rs.4 lacs. The complainant and his son believed him and got ready to give the necessary papers and Rs. 4 lacs to the above said accused as had been asked for.

The accused said that he would come to their house on 20.10.2009 and they should arrange the money. The accused would send Navpreet Singh to New Zealand within a few days after getting the papers and the money. The complainant arranged a sum of Rs.4 lacs by getting a limit santioned from the Punjab Gramin Bank, Versola for a sum of Rs.3 lacs and by borrowing some money from his neighbour Jaspal Singh son of Charan Singh. The copy of the bank detail was annexed with the complaint. Tarsem Masih and Sama Masih (petitioner) came to the house of the complainant at village Dakhla P.O. Chor Sidhwan on 20.10.2009. During conversation Sama Masih (petitioner) assured them that he was a Govt. Authorized agent and would send his son to New Zealand within a few days after receiving the money. He took the original passport of his son and other documents alongwith Rs.4 lacs from the complainant in the presence of Navpreet Singh and Jaspal Singh.

He promised to send the visa of his son within a few days. They also asked the son of the complainant to be ready for medical examination. In the first week of October, 2009, Sama Masih (petitioner No.1) made a phone call to the son of the complainant that he should come to Delhi to prepare the papers after signing them. On his asking, Navpreet Singh son of the complainant went to Delhi 4/5 times where he was made to stay in Hotel Rajdhani and other different hotels for which Rs.15000/- were spent. This went on for 1 ½ months. Thereafter son of the complainant was again called to Delhi for his medical where the said Crl. Misc. No.M-33691 of 2010 ::3:: accused were present. Medical of his son was conducted by one doctor. The report of which had not been given. After conducting the above said forged medical, Sama Masih (petitioner No.1) called the complainant and asked him to send his son to Calcutta for signing an agreement. On the asking of the said accused, the son of the complainant went to Calcutta on

15.12.2009 where he was made to stay in a hotel till 01.01.2010. His signatures were taken after preparing a forged agreement. On this the son of the complainant spent Rs.15000/- to Rs.20000/-. The copy of forged work permit and agreement were attached with the complaint. Even after doing all this, the accused could not get visa for his son and gave false assurances by preparing forged documents. As such the accused had taken Rs.4 lacs by cheating them and got a further expenditure of about Rs.50000/- incurred. Apart from this, the accused represented that they would send his son to Australia and at times represented that they would send him to New Zealand. The accused prepared forged work permit of Australia and got signatures and cheated them by showing them forged visa of New Zealand. The complainant and his son requested the above accused time and again to return their money because they were poor persons and they had given this money to them after taking a loan.

The accused initially did not listen to them but after repeated request, Sama Masih (petitioner No.1) gave an attested affidavit dated 17.06.2010 that he would return Rs.4 lacs by 23.06.2010 but now they had come to know that Sama Masih (petitioner No.1) had run away from his house and Tarsem Masih had also run away. They had cheated them by taking their money and, therefore, it was prayed that strict action as per law may be taken against Sama Masih (petitioner) and Tarsem Masih. A copy of the affidavit given by Sama Masih (petitioner) was annexed with the complaint. It is alleged that Sama Masih (petitioner) and Tarsem Masih in connivance with Crl. Misc. No.M-33691 of 2010 ::4:: each other had cheated the complainant and his son and had taken their money. In fact they were not authorized agents and they had come to know that there were other complaints of cheating against them. They had cheated other boys by taking lakhs of rupees on the ground of sending them abroad.

The said accused cheat the people by creating a gang and as such strict legal action was asked to be taken and a case be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the work of travel agent and he is just a carpenter and is not even matric pass. Therefore, the allegations are false. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there is no reason for the complainant-Manjeet Singh to falsely involve the petitioner. There are specific allegations in the FIR that he (complaiant) had paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner also obtained the passport and other papers of Navpreet Singh (son of the complainant). Navpreet Singh was also sent on 4-5 occasions to Delhi and on one occasion to Calcutta. The petitioner also deposed an affidavit for repaying the money. There are allegations of cheating others also.

Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to ascertain his involvement and also to effect the recovery. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for pre- arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. November 17, 2010 sukhpreet/A.kaundal (S.S. SARON) JUDGE