High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26341/2024dismissed

Suman Puri v. State Of Haryana

2024-07-25Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra7 pages

! !

"# $% #&'('$ ) *"+

,-./

# $%

) 0 1 23

2 2

% '( )* % !" + '( )* % ,-./'((#'

/#.'( )* %*/ 2

4 15) 1%* %// % . .%*%%)2 / 2 %,

,# $%*)/ 3$2 2/ * $ 45 , ! " 6 $

' 6 5'! /* '7*

8 %2 .*/) 2 %*/2

$% //$$%%% %

/.,3%/. $2 5%% 8 / ' %*9 */ )' :%// % %%.)/) %2 $/2 $)% %% 2 %,

**$%'% *// % */ %

* $ % ://

5$ %/1%*//$.%%/. ) %1%,

% /.2 $ /3% %/ * % */ %/.*%,# $%2

$%2% %..3$$%%2

$ / 2 ; 3$ % ' ,3%/ % '

<%** %** % $% # ! " 1%** % %// ) . / 2$ % 29 / '%. / 2 1%*///$ %! ! '% % $%%%%$% ) ( / % /. %*/1%3 % */ 6

<% $%# .%*%. ; ! ' '6

<.3*% %

/ % */ % % % /. . /

= ( /; ! '%

< %*/1. %.

.%%*/%% %*/$)%*% !'

<1%/ % /. % */*%7/%(%$% ! / %

% **%$ /$%;*%$7/%('%, # $%$3 '6

<*% % */%>%%.2>*%$ // 1% '%,/ % /. %*/ .//%/ /, 5/( * 2*31%*/ %*. %// &

2 % .*%

% % **$ % 1% */ //$ %%% *% % '!'

< 2 $ % /.2 .% . %$3//%( $ 45')$* $ %)2 % . (% $%'

2%%% ) -/* $ *

2/.%*%. 2 / ( / 8 $'8 ) 6 + * / %,

%$ %%%2 // /* %* %. . %.3 *$/ '%

* ,#

$% .3/3 $'*/$ %% ** .% % /$ , # $%' .% % */ %/, . % ** %%/ */*2.%

,# $% %*/.//% / 2

% % / */$ ) % 1% */ % >$$ / %).%$ $)$*%

<*%%# $%% % *) %/. %*/ *

*,)$/ %2*) 2 % % - )$ * / $ 9 ,% *) 2

* %1% '$ % % )2> 2 2/ + * / %,# $%% $ %%%2 // /* %*1% / $ %45.%*%%2>/ (%23 *' !' '

<% 2*) 2 % % */ %% ='!'

<% -)$ * /$9 , *) 2

* %1% *)$*% !'

< ! % 2 *** 2 % */ ?%%2 2'$ %%

/ 2 % )2//. .

Status report has been filed by respondent-State, as per which, the investigation has revealed that the petitioners were running a business in the name of Kelly Immigration of sending people abroad. They had assured the son and son-in-law of the complainant to send them abroad on spending an amount of Rs. 36 lakhs i.e. Rs. 18,00,000/- each. As per the allegations,

* after receiving huge amount of money, the petitioners sent a one year tourist visa for Australia over phone to the victims and thereafter had made them transfer an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of the co-accused Parveen. They are also alleged to have taken an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in cash from the complainant on the night of 31.08.2023 and also an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- at Delhi Airport. It is submitted that even the visa and tickets as given by the petitioners to the victims have been found to be false. According to the petitioners No.2, he has entered into a compromise with the complainant party and has deposited an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in the bank account of Nikhil Rana. However, amount of Rs. 20,86,000/- allegedly given by the complainant to them has not been returned except a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The investigation has also revealed that an amount of Rs. 18,50,000/-was withdrawn in cash from the bank account of the complainant during the period of 12.03.2023 to 11.09.2023 supporting the fact that this much amount was paid in cash to the petitioners. Learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioners are quite serious as they are indulging in extracting money from innocent persons by making false representation and giving false assurance to send them abroad. They are proved to have sent fake visas, travel tickets and forged letter issued by insurance company and even fake booking papers of hotel etc. to the victims. The offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC have been added during the course of investigation and after filing of these petitions.

prepared forged and fabricated documents like visa, tickets etc. and cheated the family members of the complainant. There was active connivance of the petitioner-Suman in inducing the victims to part with money in the name of sending them abroad. With these observations'$ %% )2//. 6 5%)% / * / %.// / * /* 2//$% %)$% $%% * *

// 1%//$ %) * %*/ % / 2.%% $ %>

$$) /. */ $% 2 1%

%//$ %) 3 2* * %% )'*3'%/23$*%)*1%

%*/ %%..3$*2 %//$ %)2*)/ )/) // $%*/ *%$% $ %*)*.%% #

/ 2* $)2 %/. %*/%2 )%** %5%/* * % % $) *%9 $

< /$%.%*%%)2 % 1%//$$% For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other

purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discussion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present cases, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petitions do not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 7.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

Since the main petitions have been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. 9.

%* % 2/* % / ** *

6 2

! *"+

,-./