'Con Can't Seek Bail Due To Victim's Stupidity': Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Immigration Fraud Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected bail of a man accused of cheating by taking money for assurance of visa and work permit at abroad to complainant's children, observing that the way he has defrauded gullible complainant "points towards the dangerous trend of the revival of thugee."

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "Although the complainant also knew that they were paying money to get a Visa through illegal means, and undoubtedly, later on cried foul, it is just like the kettle calling the pot black, but a con cannot seek bail because of the victim's stupidity."

The sly way the petitioner and his accomplices conned, tricked, deceived, swindled, and defrauded the gullible complainant points towards the dangerous trend of the revival of thugee, and if not sternly dealt with now, it might upsurge, revisiting the history, highlighted the Court.

These observations came in response of bail petition of one Vijender, who was booked under Sections 426 (Punishment for mischief), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC.

It was alleged that Vijender along with the a co-accused made dishonest inducements to the complainants to send their children abroad and that accused would obtain work permit and would procure job for children of the complainants.

The petitioner portrayed that about 500 children were sent abroad in this manner and cheated them of valuable consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 33.75 lakhs, added the state.

The state counsel also submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient incriminating evidence came on file against the petitioner.

"Vijender is named in the FIR as one of the main culprit, who made dishonest inducements to the complainants and cheated them of their hard earned money. There are specific allegations regarding money given to petitioner/accused. He is direct beneficiary of consideration amount of Rs. 5 lacs paid to him in cash...and recovery of RS. 20.000 was also effected from him in pursuance of his disclosure statement," stated that status report.

After hearing the submissions and considering the material placed on record, the Court noted that, "An analysis of the...submissions does point out that the prosecution has gathered sufficient evidence pointing  towards petitioner's role and petitioner is not entitled to bail on merits."

Justice Chitkara opined that a perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima-facie  points towards the petitioner's involvement and the gravity of the offense does not entitle the petitioner to bail at this stage.

However, since the petitioner has been in custody for almost five months, he shall be entitled to file bail either before the Trial Court/Sessions Court or before the High Court, after completing six months of total custody, if the trial is not concluded during such period, the judge added.

The Court made it clear that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment; "if he does so, the time for which the matter shall be adjourned shall not be counted for the purpose mentioned above."

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the pettoner.

Rajat Gautam, Addl AG, Haryana.

Title: Vijender v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order