JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.- Seema Mahajan – petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 10 dated 10.2.2011 under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. 2. As per allegation of the prosecution, Simarjit Singh s/o Amanjit Singh r/o Village Pandwan, PS Sadar, Phagwara, stated that his sister is permanent resident of Canada and he and his brother Pardeep Singh were desirous of going to Canada. They contacted travel agent Jagmohan Sharma s/o Jagdish Sharma r/o H.No. 1321/5 Gali No.2, Bharat Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar, who assured them that he would get visa for both the brothers for Canada within one month in lieu of which it would cost Rs.15 lacs each. It is further submitted that Rs.20 lacs were paid to Jagmohan Sharma and remaining Rs.10 lacs were to be paid at the time of visa. The said amount was paid in the month of October 2010 in the presence of Ankush chhabra s/o Kewal Krishan and Pardeep Singh s/o Satnam Singh alongwith two passports. One lady and one man had also come alongwith Jagmohan Sharma at that time. Complainant and his brother were neither sent to Canada nor the amount was returned. 3. Petitioner filed affidavit against DCP Amar Singh Chahal on 18.1.2011 in Crl. M.No. M-1185 of 2011, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegation was made against the said police official. The present FIR is stated to have been registered thereafter. The amount is stated to have been paid to Jagmohan Sharma, who is stated to be in police custody. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, a stand was taken that petitioner is not the accused and from perusal of the order dated 18.3.2011, of Additional Sessions Judge, it is revealed that application of the petitioner was dismissed on that ground. 4. According to the State counsel the supplementary statement of complainant was recorded on 12.2.2011, in which it is mentioned that lady who accompanied Jagmohan Sharma is the present petitioner. 5. So, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, in my view, it is a fit case to grant the anticipatory bail. 6. Consequently, the petition stands accepted. 4. According to the State counsel the supplementary statement of complainant was recorded on 12.2.2011, in which it is mentioned that lady who accompanied Jagmohan Sharma is the present petitioner. 5. So, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, in my view, it is a fit case to grant the anticipatory bail. 6. Consequently, the petition stands accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- 1) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation, as and when required, by the police; 2) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and 3) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------