Aman Kumar v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-72485-2025
! !
!"
AMAN KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
# $%# &' & ( )))))
#
%&
'
$# (
'
!
$
))))) ' & (* + ,-.
*
+ "
( !
,- ./ 0"
"
+
+
12 / , 3433 ( !
03456 03-5,6 4356 "./ 0
!
7
8 !9( (
.
"
'($$
: !
"
!(
$
"
# (
! "# # # !
%&
'
# (#(& #) #
)
%
(##
# ! "!(##
% *(# % ) % + % # ! # )
%# # ,
!(##
% - ( #.
( /
*(# + % !#
001) !
%# ,
!(##
% !# - ( # % ) # # -
( # ( #- ( # ) 2' #
% (
* # !2 #% #%,
!(##
% -
( # # ( ! 232 2 #( #"!(##
% - ( #-
( # (# )
#
% 4 ! #
+ % # " ( %# + % # # (%- ( #-
( # ) !
5
6 7 " !(##
% # #
+(& + %+
)# ) % # %
#
(
# - ( # ,
!(##
% 1 & % !
( - ( # % # !## 6 7 # (% 8% % 8 !# & ( ! 64 " !(##
% !# % #
) # ! ) ! ! - ( # ( #
%
%# ) #& !#( +!(##
! ! # % # & # !#6 17 # ( 3#!# # ! !# - ( ##!#% # !##6 17!#
& ( ! #
& (%
,
!(##
% 00 - ( # -
( # ( )
# & ! # 9 ! *(# + % - #
+(& %+
)# # # # #
0 % 6 97 # % # ! - ( # -
( # " !(##
% 9!
% ! ( !
# - ( #!(## 6 17!# ! # & % ! &% "!(##
%!# % 6 17 - ( ##(# # ! " ) # 10 & )- ( #) (%
!: (%# ! !#(3#!#% & # & ! ) ! (!&,
!(##
% ( #
( ! 6 7 !# !#((
! (# ! % # ; 0 7
#
+
" "
+ "
' $ !
+'
' " !
$
! '$ ";
!
'
"3
+ ! !!
& "(
!
"
(
!(
'
"!
$
/
!($ (
+
(! +' $
'
$2 "( (+$ !
(
!($
' !
"
!(
"
<( , !
!
"
$
!
( (
(
! +'
"
!(
$
'$ "
"!
$
";
+ = "3
(+
!
$
"4
""
$ ",
3
,
!
! 2 !
! !
"
+"
2 "( (+$
+(
($+ "!
'+
$"
$
"" !*
""
( ( 1 <26 9 ! =# + 1>./ 10.9/ + ?+ 6(# '
# : ( %# .
%
/ <26 > !=#+ 9>92?,?+ , %# '
# : ( %# .
%
/ <26 1>9 !=#+ 1>./10.9/+ ?++ #1 %# '
# : (%#.'
4
% / 9 <26 0 !=#+ 1>./10.9/+ ?+2# '
# # .'
4 % / <26 99=#+ 1./10 .9/1>./+@+ 19 !2
%# - ?
+ <#& (#: (%#; I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.
6.
It is evident that there are specific allegations against the petitioner for having received the money for sending the son of the complainant to Singapore and to secure him a work visa. The involvement of the petitioner in large number of similar cases (06 in total) clearly shows that
he has indulged in similar operations and has thus allured large number of person on false pretext of sending abroad.
7.
However, this Court would not loose sight of the fact that the people who are travelling abroad are actually not seeking assurances from the Travel Agents. Merely because no such written documentation was there would not be sufficient to belie the allegations of the complainant at this stage, more so, when the petitioner himself acknowledges his relationship with the respondent-complainant and also admits of having received the money in his account from the complainant.
8.
I do not find that there are sufficient circumstances which may indicate towards innocence of the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in large number of cases and such an offence would involve large number of persons for which an in depth investigation is required to be conducted, I am of the opinion that grant of anticipatory bail is likely to influence the investigation to be conducted properly. 9.
Finding no merits, the present petition is dismissed. +' & (.
*!
!" +# = >
?>/ =
?>/