GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.411 dated 27.8.2018 under Sections 406, 420, 506/34 IPC and under Sections 10/24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Manjeet Kaur wherein it is alleged that Balwinder (non-applicant) approached her and while representing that his relative is dealing in sending people abroad, arranged for a meeting of the complainant and her husband with Sukhdeep Singh (non-applicant). Sukhdeep Singh represented that he could send complainant's son to Japan for an amount of ` 8,50,000/-. The complainant and her husband arranged for payment of ` 6,20,000/-, which was paid on different dates. After about 8-10 days, the accused said that the complainant's son had been sent to Japan and asked for the balance amount. The complainant has asserted that by way of mortgaging their land, they arranged for another amount of `1,85,000/- but told him that they will make the said payment after speaking to their son. However, the accused did not allow them to speak to their son. After about 15-20 days, the complainant received a telephone call from their son who stated that he is in Vietnam and that the agent had left him there. The complainant and her husband arranged for sending an amount of `75,000/- to get their son back from Vietnam. Thereafter, they requested the aforesaid accused to return their amount but to no avail. Rather, they abused the complainant and used unparliamentary language and issued threats to kill her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a persual of the FIR would show that the said FIR is against two persons only namely Balwinder and Sukhdeep Singh and that there is no reference at all to any third person and that the name of the petitioner no where figures in the FIR.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that although the petitioner is not named in the FIR but the complainant during the course of investigation submitted another application on 24.6.2019 to the effect that one of her relatives had contacted the petitioner Gaganpreet Singh who told the complainant that he could send her son to Spain within 20 days and demanded `12 lacs for the said purpose. The complainant alleged therein that Gaganpreet Singh also introduced the complainant to his mother Harjeet Kaur. The complainant further alleged that she alongwith her husband went to the house of Harjeet Kaur and gave an amount of `3,25,000/- and later another amount of `75,000/- was deposited in the account of Gaganpreet Singh on two occasions. It is alleged that Gaganpreet Singh initially took complainant's son Gurlal to Malaysia and from there to Thailand and then to Cambodia where he was told that the entry to Korea is banned again. Gaganpreet Singh assured the complainant that after some time, he would take her son from Indonesia to Spain and that he would have to pay some more amount to his mother (Gaganpreet's mother). The complainant alleged in the said application that in the month of January, 2018, they gave an amount of ` 8 lacs at the residence of the petitioner and that in this manner Gaganpreet Singh had taken an amount of ` 12 lacs, but her son was not sent to Spain and was left stranded in Indonesia.

5. The learned State counsel has further submitted that infact it is a case where the accused Sukhdeep (non-applicant) had left the complainant's son in Vietnam instead of Japan from where he had to return back. Later, the instant petitioner Gaganpreet Singh allured the complainant by representing that while the entry to Japan is banned, he could effectively send complainant's son to Spain and in this manner duped the complainant of huge amount and the complainant's son was again left stranded in Indonesia and was not taken to Spain and ultimately the complainant's son was arrested by the police in Indonesia and was sent to jail for 3 months and thereafter deported to India.

6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

7. While it is correct that in the FIR, the allegations were levelled only against two persons namely Balwinder and Sukhdeep Singh and there is no reference to the instant petitioner but it is by way of a subsequent application that the role of the petitioner Gaganpreet Singh has been highlighted. While the complainant, ideally should have disclosed all the facts in the FIR initially but at the same time the allegations as set forth in the subsequent application against Gaganpreet Singh cannot be discarded outrightly as it appears that there is some element of truth in the same inasmuch as the complainant's son was taken to Indonesia where he was jailed and was ultimately deported. Though, this Court would also add that the complainant also should have been more careful and it should have infact been a case of 'once bitten, twice shy' but the lure of foreign lands appears to have taken over all the sanity. Unscrupulous elements thrive on the such desires of the youth by selling them false dreams of green pastures. The accused have virtually played with the life of a young boy by leaving him in the lurch and to fend for himself in foreign lands where he was kept in jail and was ultimately deported. In these circumstances, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

8.The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.