Post Top Ad


Friday, 25 September 2020

Court rejects anticipatory bail of accused in fraud case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 24

A local court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of an accused Sachin Sharma facing the charge of cheating a Panchkula resident of Rs 7 lakh on the pretext of sending him abroad on a work visa. Stating that such offences were increasing day by day, Sanjiv Joshi, Additional Sessions Judge said, "Custodial interrogation of the accused is required in order to unearth the entire episode. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted in routine or casual manner as it may ultimately affect the process of investigation."

Sachin Sharma, a resident of Zirakpur in Mohali district, filed an application under Section 438, CrPC, for the grant of anticipatory bail after the Chandigarh Police registered an FIR against him under Sections 420, 120B and 24, Immigration Act, at the Sector 34 police station on July 18, 2020 .

The case was registered on the complaint of Davinder Singh, a resident of Panchkula. He stated that Sharma, who was running an immigration business, cheated him. Davinder alleged that Sharma promised him to arrange a work visa as he had a share in a hotel in Singapore.

The accused lured him by telling that he could earn eight to nine dollars per hour in Singapore, said Davinder.

He met Sharma, one of his partners Kiran Geotra and his wife Aarti Sharma at Sector 34, Davinder added. During the meeting, a deal was settled at Rs 7 lakh, out of which, he handed over Rs 1 lakh as advance, said Davinder.

After some time he handed over Rs 6 lakh along with his original passport to the accused in the presence of Sanjeev Garg, Davinder added. They promised that his visa would be arranged in three to four months, but he was neither sent abroad nor his money was returned, said Davinder.

On the other hand counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was implicated in a false case by the complainant in connivance with police officials.

Contesting the arguments, public prosecutor submitted that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver Rs7 lakh to him to send to Singapore by arranging a work visa in connivance with the co-accused.

He neither sent the complainant to Singapore nor returned the said amount to him, the public prosecutor added. After hearing rival's contention the court stated that the accused was not entitled to the discretionary benefit of anticipatory bail.

from The Tribune

No comments:

Post a comment