High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Ravi Kumar Malhotra and another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 P&H CK 0047

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.S. Madaan
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3998>Constitution of India</a>, <a href=3998-227>Article 227</a> - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court · <a href=3859>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908</a>, <a href=3859-151>Section 151</a>, <a href=3859-148>Section 148
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
24953 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

44 paragraphs · 507 words
1.

This petition for pre arrest bail has been filed by the petitioners

Ravi Kumar Malhotra and Anita Devi @ Sonia, both of them being accused

in F.I.R. No. 38 dated 3.3.2017 for offence under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code registered with Police Station City Gurdaspur.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution version are

that F.I.R. in question was registered on the basis of application submitted

by Raman Kumar son of Sh. Subhash Chander and Sanu Sharma s/o Sh.

Davinder Kumar Chasi to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur

mentioning therein that Ravi Malhotra and his wife Sonia Malhotra had

induced them to pay `6 lacs each for the purpose of arranging their

migration to Hong Kong. In the month of June, 2016 they had sent them to

Thailand instead of Hong Kong. The accused failed to stick to their promise

to send them to Hong Kong. They did not return their money either on

receipt of this application, the matter had been enquired into by Incharge IO

Wing, Gurdaspur and thereafter formal F.I.R. had been registered.

Apprehending their arrest in the case, accused had approached the Court of

Sessions for grant of pre arrest bail, however, their such petition was

dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated

14.3.2017. As such they have approached this Court seeking similar relief

by way of making the petition in hand, notice of which was given to the

respondent State.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

State counsel besides going through the record and I find that the petition is

doomed for failure. The allegations against the petitioners are quite serious

and grave. They had induced the complainants to part with substantial

amount of `6 lacs each and their Passport giving them allurement of sending

them to Hong Kong but they did not keep their promise. There is no denying

of fact that people of the region have got a craze to migrate abroad in search

of greener postures and to achieve that aim they are willing to pay any

amount to unscrupulous elements posing as travel agents who are having a

mushroom growth now a days. Such type of people sell dreams to innocent

persons who do not hesitate to put their lives in grave danger. Many

instances have taken place in which persons desirous of migrating abroad

have lost their lives drowning in sea, falling victim to cold weather, shot at

by security forces of foreign countries etc. Therefore, such type of element

is to be dealt with an stern hand.

4.

I find that custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary to

effect the recovery of the money paid by complainants to them as well as

their Passports and for complete and effective investigation and in case

custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency that shall leave

many loop holes and loose ends in the investigation adversely effecting it

which is as uncalled for.

5.

Thus finding no merit in the petition, the same stands

dismissed.