Sunita Rani vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.94, dated 11.6.2020, Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, under

Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Jagmeet Singh Rai wherein it is alleged that Vicky Rattu was his friend and who knew that the

complainant wished to settle in Canada. Vicky Rattu introduced the complainant to petitioner-Sunita Rani while representing that she was into

immigration business and had also contested parliamentary election from Chandigarh. Vicky Rattu arranged a meeting of the complainant and his

friends with petitioner- Sunita who represented that she could send the complainant or any of his friends to Canada on permanent residency basis

along with work permit for 2 years for an amount of Rs. 32 lakhs per person and that an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs would have to be paid in advance per

person. An agreement was signed between the complainant and Sunita and a payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was paid by way of self-cheque bearing No.

292125 dated 19.7.2018, which was duly encashed. Thereafter Sunita and Vicky Rattu again demanded another amount of Rs. 1 lakh while

representing that the complainant and his wife were to be presented before Embassy. The complainant and his wife were taken to Embassy on

8.8.2019 and thereafter Vicky Rattu informed the complainant that Visa had been issued to the complainant and to his wife and asked him to deposit

another amount of Rs. 90,000/-. On 2.9.2019, an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was transferred to the account of Vicky Rattu through NEFT. The

complainant was thereafter called to Calcutta where Sunita and Vicky Rattu introduced the complainant to one Rohit Paul. Said Rohit Paul showed

Visa to the complainant and to his wife and asked them to pay another amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. The said amount was accordingly paid in cash to the

accused on 4.9.2019. Though the accused demanded complete payment but the complainant told them that he has to raise a loan from the bank. The

complainant told them that at that point of time he could only pay an amount of Rs. 2.10 lakhs by way of withdrawing the same from his account.

Accordingly, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 2.10 lakhs from PNB Branch at Calcutta through cheque bearing No.292127 and paid the

same to the three accused namely Sunita, Vicky Rattu and Rohit Paul. After returning back to Ludhaiana the complainant asked the accused to

procure a Visa for his daughter as well, upon which the accused asked for complete payment. The complainant after availing gold loan of Rs. 8 lakhs

and after receiving a friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from his friend Kunal gave an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to Sunita and Vicky Rattu on 17.9.2019.

Thereafter on 3.10.2019 Sunita and Vicky Rattu showed a copy of Visa of complainant’s daughter and demanded another Rs. 3 lakhs which was

given to them on 3.10.2019. However, upon seeing the copy of Visa, the complainant became suspicious as the date of issue of Visa was shown as

7.8.2019 whereas the application for issuance of Visa had been submitted on 8.8.2019. The accused thereafter sent air tickets to the complainant and

also made a telephonic conversation with accused Rohit Paul who demanded the balance payment. The complainant however, insisted that he would

pay the balance only after receiving back the Passports and tickets. However, subsequently the phone of Rohit Paul used to remain switched off. The

complainant kept on visiting Vicky Rattu and Sunita who introduced him to Ganesh who arranged for a talk with Rohit Paul. Rohit Paul assured that

he would arrange for tickets within a week and asked him to come to Mumbai. It is alleged that although the complainant and his friend went to

Bombay but could not meet Rohit Paul and ultimately returned back. After returning back the complainant asked Rohit Paul to return their Passports

and tickets but Rohit Paul refused for the same and kept on pressurizing them to pay more money. The Passports of the complainant and of his family

were not returned. The complainant thus alleged that the accused had thus cheated him of an amount of more than Rs. 24 lakhs and that he suspects

that the Visa alleged to be issued to the complainant and his family is a fake Visa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of political rivalry as she actively

participated in political meetings and seminars. Learned counsel has submitted that in fact it is the petitioner who has been duped of an amount of Rs.

5 lakhs by Rohit Paul who run a consultancy agency for sending the people abroad and who was in league with one Paster named James Bawa who

represented that he could sent people abroad and the petitioner being taken in by the said representation gave an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs for the

purpose of sending her daughter abroad but later on she came to know that she had been given forged Visa papers by Rohit Paul. When she made a

complaint to SSP, Mohali in January, 2020, she has now been got falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that the bank statement of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) would show that there has been no credit of any amount in her account either by

way of cheque or by way of cash as has been alleged in the FIR.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that there are serious allegations levelled in the FIR and which stand substantiated from the

fact that some of the payments as stated to have been made were made through NEFT or by way of encashment of cheque. It has been submitted

that although the payment through NEFT was made in the account of co-accused Vicky Rattu but since the petitioner, Vicky Rattu and Rohit Paul

were working together for fleecing innocent persons as has been specifically alleged, no case for grant of bail is made out.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

The petitioner is not only specifically named in the FIR but in fact a perusal of the FIR would show that she has played a pivotal role right from day

one in fleecing the complainant by holding out false representations and had been actively participating in depriving the complainant of huge amounts

of money, a substantial amount of which had been withdrawn from his bank. In fact some transactions are also stated to have been made by way of

NEFT.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the nature of allegations this Court does not find any special case for

grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is sans any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.