Karan Saggar vs State of Haryana and Another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—Crl.M. No. 20525 of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M. No. M-11297 of 2011

The present petition filed u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in case FIR No. 5, dated 9.1.2010, Annexure P1, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which application for anticipatory bail filed by Petitioner-accused was dismissed.

This is second application for anticipatory bail filed by Petitioner-accused before this Court. He first approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide detailed order dated 13.3.2010. Then he filed application for anticipatory bail before this Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vide order dated 16.9.2010, passed in Crl.M. No. M-8301 of 2010.

Brief allegations against Petitioner-accused are that he alongwith his co-accused has cheated complainant as well as Joginder Singh and they obtained Rs. 14,70,000/- from complainant Joginder Singh on the pretext of sending them abroad. Disclosure statement was suffered by one of the accused Charanjit Kumar during investigation and as per his statement lacs were taken by Petitioner as his share. There are allegations that Petitioner alongwith co-accused had given an advertisement that they are running a travel agency in the name of Balaji Consultants for arranging passport, visa and work permit etc. for sending people abroad and pursuant to that advertisement, complainant and Joginder Singh approached them and thereafter, they visited complainant and Joginder Singh several times and agreed to send them abroad, i.e. America via Japan, and demanded Rs. 20,00,000/-. As per allegations, Petitioner accused alongwith his co-accused, in fact, had obtained Rs. 14,70,000/- and only Rs. 55,000/- were returned by the present applicant.

Bail application was opposed on behalf of the State before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, on the plea that investigation is in progress and custodial interrogation of the Petitioner-accused is necessary in order to unearth the racket. FIR is dated 9.1.2010 and Petitioner is absconding since then, despite the fact that his applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and by this Court.

In view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the Petitioner-accused.

7 Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by Petitioner-Karan Saggar for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit.