Harinder Singh Sahota v. State Of Punjab And Others

 








 

 

 





  


 !

"

#$
"

$%& 



"& &!
%'
() *
+,
  
 -


 ./
 ",
 "
  



 

 !
"#
$ %

!


&'(
 !#
$

(
$)#
*+,

&!
 !
 '(#
$ %
 -!
&*.#
$ %

  
-

/
00000
  
0
,
1.

Petitioner Harinder Singh Sahota has filed petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.41 dated 12.05.2024, under Sections 406, 420 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur.
2.

As per facts of the case, Harjit Singh and Manpreet Singh came in contact with Harinder Singh Sahota in connection with going abroad. Said agent demanded Rs.25 lacs for each member for arranging their tourist Visa to Canada. Said agent received Rs.4,19,000/- from Harjit Singh and Rs.3,31,500/- from Manpreet Singh and in this way total amount of Rs.7,50,500/- were received and their signatures were obtained on different


papers. He further charged Rs.10,000/- from both of them. Said agent did not send them to Canada nor refunded their money. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered.
3.

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner had received money from respondents No.2 and 3 for processing their case for going to Canada. He has placed on record his license (Annexure P-2) and the declaration/agreement signed by respondents No.2 and 3 (Annexure P-3) for receiving fee for consultancy services which was non-refundable. It is pointed out that both the complainants changed their minds. Present petitioner had prepared their case as per agreed terms. Petitioner has not cheated complainants. In fact, the said amount was non-refundable fee. 4.

Bail petition is opposed by l
*(
 


,1
(
*(

.

(

*
 

(
( 

2!
(( 
(%((

!
.

(
'
. 

3

*,.
!

*
4*1#

'
*
!

!
%
5#

#6

7
.
!
.

(
,*
!#
!
!


'
*

!
.*
'
* 

2!#



(

,
(

 1
,(
5.

I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. Petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 30.05.2024 and in pursuance of this, petitioner has already joined investigation. Learned counsel for petitioner claimed that said amount of Rs.7,60,500/- was received by petitioner as non-refundable charges for processing their case whereas this fact is denied by complainants. Matter in controversy can be

/
decided during trial. Petitioner has already joined the investigation, therefore, without expressing my mind on merits of the case, interim bail already granted in favour of petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2024 stands confirmed subject to the conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
6.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.

  


1  
2


  
8!!
 9 7 
:7-
8!!
 ,(

:7-