Mandeep Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.143 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant assured the informant to procure him visa for the admission of the informant in foreign schools. The FIR is quite in detail. According to it, the applicant had initially demanded Rs. 15 Lacs. Rs. 5 lacs were given in cash on 01.07.2021 to the applicant and the co-accused. Thereafter, the applicant gave an account number, in which total Rs. 8,70,000/- were deposited by the informant. The informant was given an offer letter. But, thereafter, no action was taken by the applicant and the informant neither got visa nor did he was supplied with any document pertaining to admission of the informant in foreign school and he has also returned the original documents of the informant. Subsequently, the informant approached the applicant. He declined to hear him and forced him out of the office.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR was lodged in the year 2022; the allegations pertain to the year 2021; the other partner of the applicant, in connivance of the informant, had got the money deposited in the account of the applicant so as to falsely implicate him.

Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant has cheated the informant in the name of securing visa and admission in foreign school. He would submit that Rs. 8,70,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant. He would refer to Page 6, Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the State.

Learned State Counsel would submit that Rs. 8,70,000/- were taken by the applicant in the name of securing visa and admission in foreign school to the informant.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

It is a case of inducement and obtaining money in the name of securing visa and admission of the informant in foreign school. According to the informant, in the year 2021, he was induced to deliver more than Rs. 13 Lacs to the applicant. Rs. 5 Lacs were deposited in cash and Rs. 8,70,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant. In the counter affidavit, in Para 6, the State has categorically stated that Rs. 8,70,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant.

There is one important factor in the instant case. On 25.09.2023, when the arguments were raised in this bail application, a statement was given that parties may arrive at a settlement. In fact, on behalf of the applicant, a statement was given that he is ready to repay the amount to the informant. If the partner of the applicant had connived with the informant so as to deposit the money in the account of the applicant, he could have returned the money. In fact, today, it is stated that despite assurance given on 25.09.2023, the applicant has not returned the money.

Having considered the gravity of the offence and its ramification, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.