Romesh Gupta vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Romesh Gupta, petitioner, has filed the present petition u/s 438, Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR 168 dated 2.12.1998, registered in Police Station, City Hoshiarpur, u/s 406/420 IPC.

The FIR was registered on the joint complaint of Gurdip Singh, Amrik Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Harjap Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Kuldeep Ram, Tirath Ram, Santokh Kumar, Hans Raj and Rulda Ram, who wrote to the S.S.P., Hoshiarpur, alleging that M/s Gupta Enterprises, Travel Advisers and Booking Agents, carrying on business at Court Road, Hoshiarpur, had cheated them and after realising Rs. 60,000/ from 31 persons with the promise that the petitioner would arrange to provide job to each of the complainants. However, the firm was not financially sound. No job was given as a result of which, the complainants had to return to India from Dubai. When the proprietor of the firm was confronted as to why he had received the money, he threatened the complainants with dire consequences. Efforts were made to impress upon the petitioner to return the money but of no consequence. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 15.12. 1997 and the reasons of rejection are incorporated in para5, which reads follows :

"The main allegations of the complainant are that they parted with a sum of Rs. 55000/ to Rs. 60000/ on the inducement given by the applicantaccused that he would arrange job for them in abroad and consequently send them to Dubai. As the financial position of the company was not good, the complainant along with other persons had to return India. Before going the applicant accused obtained affidavits from them, stating therein that the applicant accused had received a sum of Rs. 2000/ to 3000/ only. It shows that from the very beginning the intention of the applicantaccused was to cheat them and not to give them job as agreed. By taking the amount of Rs. 55000/ to 60000/ from each of the 47 persons, the applicantaccused had collected huge amount in lacs and failed to provide them job and thereby cheated them on false inducement. The learned Addl. PP states that the applicatantaccused is also required for investigation and interrogation purposes. In view of the serious allegations against the applicationaccused, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where concession of prearrest bail should be given to them. Hence, the application for prearrest bail is dismissed."

I have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent.

The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner were two fold. Firstly, that the interim directions dated 19.12.1997 have already been granted by Hon''ble Mr. Justice K.S. Kumaran and in pursuance of those directions, the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed. Therefore, it has become a fit case where those directions should be confirmed. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned AAG that the High Court was not bound to confirm the interim directions. At that stage, the viewpoint of the State was not heard. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. He has cheated the youth of the country by devouring Rs. 55,000/ to Rs. 60,000/ from each of the aspirants who were given a false promise that they would be given a job in Dubai. The youth had to face frustration as they could not get the job and in this view of the matter the directions dated 19.12.1997 should not be confirmed.

I fully agree with the submissions raised by the counsel for the respondent. The grant of interim directions does not mean that the bail should be given to the petitioner as a matter of right. Each and every case has to be viewed on merits. In the present case, there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner that he received Rs. 55,000/ to Rs. 60,000/ on the inducement given by him that he would manage jobs for the complainants abroad. They were even sent to Dubai but they faced frustration. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

It was then submitted by Mr. Cheema that at the most it is a case of over charging in view of section 24(F) of the Emigration Act, 1983. It is not, prima facie, a case of misappropriation and cheating.

I do not subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because this court is to be guided by the allegations where it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner even obtained affidavits from the persons to be sent abroad that he had received only a sum of Rs. 2,000/ to Rs. 3,000/. It has been rightly stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that right from the very beginning, the intention of the petitioner was bad and he wanted to cheat the aspirants fully realising that they would not get the jobs. Such like persons who are involved in scandals and who cheat innocent youth of this country by sending them abroad on false pretexts/promises are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.