Mohammed Raheem Uddin v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.13098 OF 2016 ORDER:

The petitioner, who is A.1, preferred the present Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.226 of 2016 of Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 are close associates.

A.1 was doing business of preparation and documentation of Visa for abroad, whereas A.2 was doing polish work, assisting A.1 and both used to take equal share in the profits. The informant, who is Tailor, and LW.2, who is an employee of ICICI Bank, are husband and wife and in the year, 2015 they planned to go to Canada on Visit Visa. One Vasu, who is the uncle of the informant, advised him to contact A.1 and A.2 for Visa. Accordingly, in the month of February, 2015, the informant contacted A.1 and A.2 and discussed about Visa, for which, they demanded Rs.4,00,000/- towards expenses. Then, the informant gave Rs.40,000/- as advance for documentation. After two months, A.1 and A.2 informed the informant that the Visas are ready and to collect them after clearing the balance amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. Then, the informant paid the balance amount and took Visas. In the month of May, 2015 the informant and his wife went to Delhi Airport

CPK,J CrlP_13098_2016 for going Canada, where the immigration authorities checked the Visas and declared them as fake. Then, the informant and his wife returned to Hyderabad and demanded for return of the amount. A.1 and A.2 are alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences and cheated the informant.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the allegations in the report are all false and invented for the purpose of this case and that the petitioner is no way concerned with the offences alleged against him.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same.

5.

A perusal of the remand Case Diary would show that A.1 and A.2 handed over Visas to the informant by collecting an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. When the informant and his wife went to Delhi Airport, the Immigration Department checked the Visas and found them to be fake and fabricated. Having regard to the nature of offences alleged, which in my view, are grievous and serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date:09.09.2016 INL