Duping Man Of ₹35 Lakhs on Sending Abroad Granted Bail: PB&HR HC
D.D:23-06-2022
In a case where the petitioner and his mother were accused of defrauding the complainant out of Rs.35,00,000/- under the pretence of sending the complainant’s son to Canada, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted the petitioner bail on the grounds that his co-accused (mother) has already been released on bail and he has been incarcerated for nearly two months.
Taking into account that the petitioner’s co-accused, to whom the attribution of inducement is made, has already been released on bail. In addition, the petitioner has already been incarcerated for nearly two months since his arrest.
The bench composed of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj added that further interrogation of the petitioner in custody is not necessary. The complainant asserted that the Petitioner collected the aforementioned sum from him, but did not fulfil his obligations. Afterwards, the Petitioner allegedly drew a check in the complainant’s favour, which subsequently became dishonoured.
The Petitioner argued that he is completely unfamiliar with the complainant and that he has never engaged in any kind of transaction with said complainant. Further, it was argued that there was no reason for the complainant to have advanced Rs.35,00,000/- in a span of one month without obtaining a receipt for doing so, despite the fact that cash transactions of such a large amount are prohibited by law and the complainant’s capacity to advance such a large amount has yet to be established.
In addition, the Petitioner argued that there was no reason for the complainant not to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, especially since the disputed check had been returned in October 2019. Apparent failure on the part of the complainant to establish existence of a legally enforceable debt and pre-existing liability appears to be the reason why the complainant chose not to pursue the appropriate legal remedy and instead conspired with police officials to file the current FIR in January 2020.
Moreover, he argued that it is incomprehensible that the complainant would travel all the way to Yamuna Nagar in order to send his son abroad, given the large number of travel agencies that are fully operational within the state of Punjab. After reviewing the opposing arguments of the parties, the court determined that the co-accused, who is the petitioner’s mother, was the principal defendant in the case registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The co-defendant has already been released on bail, and the petitioner has spent nearly two months incarcerated since his arrest, the court added. Therefore, his application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is granted subject to his providing bail/surety bonds. “Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is admitted to regular bail subject to his providing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned,” the order stated.
Sanjay Bakshi
Versus
State Of Punjab
