Ajay Lather v. State Of Haryana


 



!
 " #
$"

%&'
& (
&)& &
 &
& ( !&

(
*
(++,
-. .




&/0
1


2
*
0



 


34


$
5+
$



2
*
0

   &,

6'1
2.
%"2


&&%

'&

 
         

  

!"##
#$#   % & ' 

  

()*
#$#   & +  ,&- ./ '   

!"##
#$# 
 .  ./ '  

()*
#$#   ,'. 0  

% # 

!"##
#$#  1111 &&%

'&

7
%.

5
2  

 

!"##
#$#    

()*
#$# 

3 
 0   -- 45 6  0 +



 

 

#
 #   &/0
1
+
           )#  2 '%0 6  6    #$#!

 0     


7  ' 3  +    $
5+
$
+
34          )! 2 '%0 6 6  #$#!

0   0  3  45 % "()$*#$#  0     $* #$ ($* 5 8  #   9-0    +    #"$)#$# :     2     ! 4       -   -     +   -  +   0 - + +   + 0 +  03 '

 -  -   +  



 +3    

  6+

     -    ;  

0 -   -  +

 3 ₹($     -    0         -    +       

 ₹"*$$$$7
         3  ,' '+  0<.,'   

₹10 lacs from his house. He made total payment of ₹96 lacs to Ajay and Dinesh through bank transfer and by making payment in cash. Dinesh, who was dealing with buffaloes borrowed ₹31 lacs from him on 4-5 occasions in August, 2023. He requested number of times to Dinesh either send his son abroad or return his money. On 18.03.2024, his son Rajat went to the house of Dinesh to make payment, where Dinesh and his brothers threatened his son. With these allegations, present case has been registered.

!
 4.

Learned counsel for petitioner Ajay Lather in CRM-M-437222024 argued that allegations levelled against petitioner are false. He has nothing to do with business of sending people abroad. He is doing business of buffaloes and in that connection, he had received ₹7,60,000/- through RTGS. There is no record to show that complainant had the capacity to give huge amount of ₹90 lacs for sending his son and nephew to America. Facts of the case indicate that allegations are against Dinesh, who is brother of present petitioner. To show his intention to return the money, he had deposited demand draft of ₹7,60,000/- with the office of Registrar General. Matter was also referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre but no fruitful results could be achieved. Petitioner is ready to join investigation.

Therefore, his anticipator bail petition may be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner Paras alias Parsa in CRM-M-51864-2024 argued that petitioner was arrested on 19.09.2024. Since then, he is behind the bars. He was not named in FIR. He is falsely implicated in this case being brother of co-accused Dinesh. Since, he has already joined investigation, therefore, his regular bail petition may be allowed.

5.

Status report(s) in both cases were filed, which were taken on record. In CRM-M-43722-2024, learned counsel representing State pointed out that present petitioner Ajay Lather is specifically named who also received huge amount from complainant. Disclosure statement of coaccused Dinesh further clarifies the factual position. Present petitioner received money on the pretext of sending son and nephew of complainant

 abroad. Neither the children were sent abroad nor money is returned. Therefore, petitioner is required to join in the investigation and his anticipatory bail petition may be dismissed.

Whereas, in CRM-M-51864-2024, learned counsel representing State pointed out that present petitioner was named by coaccused. From his possession, cash of ₹40,000/- was recovered. It is conceded that he has already joined investigation and at present, he is in judicial custody.

6.

I have considered the arguments in both cases and have gone through the record carefully. Going through the facts of case, petitioner Ajay Lather is specifically named. He received ₹7,60,000/- through RTGS in his account and ₹10 lacs in cash. As per facts narrated in FIR, present petitioner Ajay Lather and his brother Dinesh, both were involved for sending son and nephew of complainant to foreign country. Stand taken by present petitioner Ajay Lather that money was received in connection with business of buffaloes is matter of defence. Alongwith status report, disclosure statements of co-accused are also annexed. Considering the specific role attributed to petitioner and huge amount involved in this case, I do not find a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Ajay Lather and petition filed by him bearing CRM-M No. 43722 of 2024 is accordingly, dismissed.

Demand Draft to the tune of ₹7,60,000/- deposited with Registrar General be returned to petitioner Ajay Lather as per rules, on proper receipt.

(
 7.

So far as regular bail petition i.e. CRM-M-51864-2024 filed by petitioner Paras alias Parsa is concerned, he has already joined investigation and he is behind the bars since 19.09.2024. Trial of this case may take some time. No purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for indefinite time period. Even otherwise, initially he was not named in FIR. Considering the aforesaid factual position, 0   3  3'8++$
5+
$
9+:

.
34
*
+
55;/  3  3 

 03     ' 3      

       7 ' 0  

 )  0 - 

      :    '   3   

    ' +

$=##$#

&&%

'&

 

























%"(!
> 6

 ? 7%  >  3  ? 7%