JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 04.10.2010 for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind. 3. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Chand Ram who has alleged that one of his sons namely Jagat Singh had appeared for an interview for the post of Clerk at Chandigarh in the Railways Department on 08.3.2009. The elder daughter of the complainant Chand Ram namely Debi is married to Subhash son of Sarju at village Hathwala, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. The husband’s elder brother (Jeth) of the daughter of the complainant namely Rameshwar had come to village Hathwala from Delhi. The complainant was also there at his daughter’s house in village Hathwala. Rameshwar the husband’s elder brother (Jeth) of the daughter of the complainant was on visiting terms with Amarjeet (petitioner), his brother-Baljeet, Ajay @ Biru and Sushma wife of petitioner-Amarjeet. Amarjeet, Baljeet and Ajay @ Biru were at village Hathwala to meet the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the daughter of the complainant. The complainant talked about the interview of his son Jagat Singh. Then Baljeet and Ajay replied that Amarjeet is in private service in Delhi and has acquaintances with MPs and senior officers. He would get his son in service. Then, Amarjeet (petitioner) who was sitting on the side said that they would arrange a job for his son. They would meet him (Chand Ram) some day at his village Ghimana, Tehsil and District Jind. After some days, Amarjeet, Baljeet, Ajay @ Biru came to village Ghimana and represented that the son of the complainant would get a job. These persons demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs. The complainant paid Rs.3.5 lacs to the said persons in village Ghimana in the presence of his son Rajesh and his brother Attar Singh. On 15.05.2009, the complainant received a call from Amarjeet (petitioner) that his work would be done soon and he should pay the balance amount of Rs.1.5 lacs on 18.05.2009. Amarjit Singh (petitioner) and his wife Sushma Devi came to the house of the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.1.5 lacs to the petitioner’s wife- Sushma. Sushma also convinced him and took Rs.1.5 lacs. At that time, his nephew-Sultan son of Omparkash was at his house. Amarjit Singh (petitioner) and his wife Sushma Devi came to the house of the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.1.5 lacs to the petitioner’s wife- Sushma. Sushma also convinced him and took Rs.1.5 lacs. At that time, his nephew-Sultan son of Omparkash was at his house. In his presence, Amarjeet (petitioner) and his wife (Sushma) took Rs.1.5 lacs from him and assured him that he should not worry, they would get a job for his (complainant’s) son. After some days, the complainant spoke to the accused Baljeet and Ajay @ Biru at village Dehra. Then they asked him (complainant) to meet Amarjeet (petitioner) at Delhi and the complainant met him (Amarjeet) who informed that the work in the Railways Department was not possible and he would get the job done in some other department. In this way, he had been giving false assurances. The complainant and his nephew on 30.07.2010 asked Amarjeet (petitioner) and his wife-Sushma for the refund of money. The petitioner, however, did not return the amount. Instead threatened him to do whatever he may like to do. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is alleged that the incident occurred in the months of May and July, 2009 (when the petitioner refused to return the money) and the FIR has been registered on 04.10.2010 i.e. after about more than one year of the incident, which shows that the same has been done after due deliberations and planning. The petitioner and his family, it is submitted, has been implicated to put pressure on them otherwise, the petitioner has no role to play. In any case, it is submitted that the matter is of civil liability and no criminal liability can be fastened. It is also submitted that Sushma (wife of the petitioner) has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that the custody of the petitioner is required as the amount is to be recovered from him; besides, there are allegations against the petitioner that he asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as he had assured him (complainant) that his son namely Jagat Singh would be given a job in the Railways Department. 6. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there are allegations against the petitioner that he has surreptitiously taken an amount of Rs.5 lacs from the complainant. The petitioner is the person who was represented by his co-accused Baljeet Singh and Ajay @ Biru as the person who would get the work of the complainant done. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner through his agent and wife on two separate occasions i.e. Rs.3.5 lacs on one occasion and Rs.1.5 lacs on the other occasion. The custody of the petitioner is required to recover the amount and also to carry out effective investigation in the matter. The fact that Sushma (wife of the petitioner) has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court does not have a bearing on this case as it was stated on her behalf that the allegations in the case were primarily against her husband namely Amarjeet and that Sushma was being implicated because she was the wife of Amarjeet Singh (petitioner). Sushma was granted pre-arrest bail by his Court on 08.12.2010 with the directions to join the investigation as and when called. On 16.03.2011, it was submitted by the learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Dinesh Chander, Police Station Sadar, Jind that Sushma had joined the investigation and her custody was not required for the purposes of investigation. In the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner-Sushma in the said case was made absolute. Therefore, the case of the said petitioner is not similar to that of petitioner in the present case. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------