Crime Branch Jammu contests bail applications of accused in VISA Fraud

Jammu April 29: Crime Branch Jammu strongly contested the anticipatory bail application of

accused Daljeet Singh and got the bail dismissed after convincing the Hon’ble High Court J&K. Crime Branch Jammu for his involvement in defrauding the complainant of Rs 4,59,800/- on the pretext of providing work VISA of Canada.

The accused along with other co-accused are not cooperating in the investigation of the case and are constantly on run to evade arrest. On sensing apprehension of his arrest by Crime Branch Jammu, the accused had applied for anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble High Court, J&K after the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Ist Addl. Session Court Jammu earlier also on being contested by Crime Branch Jammu on merits of the case.

The case owes its origin to a written complaint lodged by Manpreet Singh & Gagandeep Kour residents of Village Bharkh Tehsil Pouni, Reasi, who have alleged that the accused had a conversation with Aditya from Mohali who induced and lured the complainant with an offer letter from Canada and told him and his wife to deposit Money in Health Insurance, Medical Check-up with the processing fee.

Then, later on, he demanded more money on the name of Fingerprint forms, Embassy fee and the accommodation charges for their stay in Canada. After taking an overall amount of Rs. 4, 59,800/- from the complainant, the accused did not respond nor did he pick their phone calls

While dismissing the bail application, the Hon’ble Court inter-alia observed that the investigation is at its inception. A petitioner is a person residing beyond the borders of the Union Territory of J&K and as per the Investigating Agency; he is absconding and evading arrest. In these circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail in anticipation of his arrest, the whole investigation is likely to get derailed.

For the investigation to progress further, the presence of the petitioner and co-accused

before the Investigating Agency and their custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary. The fact that the petitioner is absconding and is evading arrest disentitles him to the grant of discretionary relief in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C.