2020 (11) TMI 505 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Act of Cheating - applicant states that he has got nothing to do with the alleged transaction with the 2nd accused and the defacto complainant and that it was entirely the responsibility of the 2nd accused who have agreed to arrange the job Visa as stated by the defacto complainant - HELD THAT - The promise to arrange Visa was made entirely by the 2nd accused. He was not able to fulfill the promise, and therefore, agreed to return the amount. He entered into an agreement, which is produced before this Court, which indicates that he has unconditionally agreed to return the amount to the defacto complainant. He has also issued cheques for the amount and the cheques were not honoured and in consequence of that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has also been filed by the defacto complainant. Nowhere in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant under Section 138 or in the agreement executed by the 2nd accused, the involvement of the applicant is mentioned. It is only in the F.I.Statement that the name of the applicant is mentioned by the defacto complainant regarding his introducing the defacto complainant to the 2nd accused. In case the applicant was also involved in the sharing of the money and cheated, the agreement executed by the 2nd accused would definitely have made mention of the applicant. The fact that the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the agreement indicates that there is no material to prove his complicity at present. There is no reason to believe that he will not cooperate with the investigation or abscond or flee from justice. The bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. based on alleged involvement in cheating case related to job Visa arrangement.

Analysis:
The applicant, the 1st accused, sought anticipatory bail in a case where the defacto complainant was allegedly cheated regarding a job Visa arrangement. The prosecution's case outlined that the applicant directed the complainant to the 2nd accused for the Visa process, resulting in a payment of ?60 lakhs. However, the Visa was not arranged as promised, leading to the complainant being cheated. The 2nd accused, in an attempt to repay the amount, issued cheques that bounced, prompting legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him.

The applicant denied involvement in the transaction with the 2nd accused, claiming he merely introduced the complainant to the 2nd accused and had no part in the alleged cheating. The Public Prosecutor argued that evidence, including WhatsApp messages and a confession statement by the 2nd accused, linked the applicant to the cheating scheme. The Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail for the applicant based on these grounds.

The Court examined the evidence and found that the promise to arrange the Visa was solely made by the 2nd accused, who subsequently agreed to repay the amount. The agreement and complaint did not implicate the applicant, with his name only mentioned in the complainant's statement regarding the introduction to the 2nd accused. The absence of the applicant's name in the agreement indicated a lack of current evidence of his involvement. While the Prosecutor cited WhatsApp messages as potential proof, further investigation was deemed necessary.

Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, directing him to cooperate with the investigation. The applicant was required to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, with conditions including refraining from influencing witnesses, appearing for interrogation, surrendering his passport, and avoiding similar offenses during the bail period. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon prosecution application before the jurisdictional court.