Pradeep Saini @ Sandeep v. The State (NCT Of Delhi)
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1114/2016 PRADEEP SAINI @ SANDEEP ..... Petitioner Represented by:
Mr. Roshan Saini, Advocate.
versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by:
Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Kumar, PS Rani Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 11.07.2016 In view of notification No.1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 6th July, 2016 the matters listed for 8th July, 2016 have been taken up today. By this petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 178/2016 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at PS Rani Bagh, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated. He is not a partner in M/s Sobhagya International and it is a proprietorship firm of Mr. Amit Chhibber who is already in custody. No job or visa was guaranteed to the complainants. Learned APP for the State submits that there are as many as 48 victims. Though some of the agreements show that Amit Chhibber was the proprietor of M/s Sobhagya International however, few agreements show that both Pradeep Saini, the petitioner herein and Amit Chhibber were BAIL APPLN. 1114/2016
partners of M/s Sobhagya International. Some of the agreements have been signed by the present petitioner as well.
The allegations in the FIR lodged by Damodar S. Bhekne are that Amit Chibber and the petitioners induced him and many other persons for getting visa for work in Canada. Despite giving money Amit Chibber refused to give him receipt of money and despite two years, no visa was provided. A perusal of the agreements reveal that no job or visa is guaranteed however, it is a case where 48 victims were orally assured of visa for which `40,000/- to `80,000/- were charged from the various victims. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 11, 2016 'vn'
BAIL APPLN. 1114/2016