Nirmal Panwar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 19 of 2012 dated 2.2.2012 registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint filed by Smt. Mamta on the allegations that co-accused Anil Kumar had assured the husband of the complainant to provide him job in a foreign country and in lieu thereof Anil Kumar had asked the complainant to pay Rs. 3,50,000/-. It has been alleged that amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid to Anil Kumar in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner has no connection with the commission of alleged offence. There is no link evidence against the petitioner, who has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is a government employee.

The petitioner is innocent, she has committed no offence. On account of the registration of the case she apprehends her arrest in the above case. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. The case has been registered on the written complaint of Mamta dated 2.2.2012 which was received in the Police Station. It has been stated that her husband Balbir Singh is a mason. The petitioner in the year 2006 contacted husband of complainant through Vinod Kumar for sending him in some foreign country. On this, the complainant and her husband met the petitioner who told them that she had been sending persons in foreign countries by taking help of Anil Kumar. She asked that if complainant and her husband intended to go to foreign country then they will have to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- would be advance.

The husband of the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- to Nirmal and after one month Nirmal demanded another sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was paid to Nirmal. It has been stated that petitioner instead of work visa provided tourist visa to husband of the complainant for Singapore. The husband of the complainant did not get any job at Singapore and he returned to India. The complainant and her husband met petitioner, who arranged their meeting with Anil Kumar. He gave a forged affidavit in the year 2007 that money would be returned but in the affidavit even the complete address of Anil Kumar was not given. It has been stated that complainant is a poor woman, the petitioner has not returned their money. It has been alleged that petitioner and her husband fraudulently obtained Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant and her husband for sending the husband of the complainant to some foreign country. On this, case was registered.

It has come in the investigation that in the year 2006 the petitioner was working as Nurse in CHC, Daulatpur. The petitioner represented to Vinod and Balbir that with the help of Anil Kumar she could arrange the foreign visit of persons interested in employment in foreign countries by charging Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- would be in advance. Vinod and Balbir paid Rs. 50,000/- each to the petitioner and after some time she told Vinod and Balbir that they will have to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- each more which were paid by Vinod and Balbir to petitioner. The petitioner also told that her husband Raj Gopal and brother would also accompany Vinod and Balbir to Singapore and would convert tourist visa into work visa.

Balbir could stay in Singapore on tourist visa for about one month and thereafter came to India. Balbir and Vinod demanded their money back from Nirmal. The petitioner arranged their meeting with Anil Kumar who gave affidavit for returning the amount but in the affidavit Anil Kumar gave his wrong address. It has come in the investigation that petitioner, her husband Raj Gopal and Anil Kumar in conspiracy with each other had been extracting amounts from the persons on the plea that they would arrange their foreign visit on work visa. The whereabouts of Anil Kumar are not known nor Raj Gopal is available. The amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- is to be recovered which the petitioner and others have extracted wrongly from Vinod and Balbir. It has been stated that FIR No. 29 of 2009 dated 11.2.2009 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC is also registered at Police Station, Gagret against Nirmal, Raj Gopal and Anil and the case is pending in the Court. A prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. It has been stated that there are in all three accused namely Raj Gopal, Anil Kumar and petitioner. The accused Raj Gopal and Anil have absconded. The accused in connivance with each other fraudulently extracted Rs. 6,00,000/- from Vinod and Balbir on the pretext of sending them to foreign country on work visa. It has been stated that instead of work visa, Vinod and Balbir were sent to Singapore on tourist visa for short term and thereafter they returned to India. The petitioner got arranged the meeting of Vinod and Balbir with Anil Kumar who gave affidavit that he would return the amount. It is the case of the prosecution that in the affidavit Anil Kumar gave his wrong address and he is not available at the address given in the affidavit. Raj Gopal husband of the petitioner and Anil Kumar have absconded. The amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- is to be recovered. The petitioner is also an accused in FIR No. 29 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Gagret. It is the case of the prosecution that in FIR No. 29 of 2009 similar allegations are against the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is habitual offender. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.