Rudhra Bahadur Mehra v. State

1. Exemption is allowed,subjectto allJust exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN.3150/2019

3. The petitioner has filed the preseiit petition, inter alia, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.81/2018,under Sections 420/468/471 ofthe IPG and Section 12 ofthe Passports Act,1967,registered with Police Station IGI Airport.

4. The said FIR was registered at the instance ofone woman(Ms Sabita Limbu-hereafter the 'complainant')who was found travelling out ofIndia on a fake Sehengen visa. She had revealed that she had procured the said visa from the petitioner,herein on paymentofasum oft[2].[5] lacs.

5. According to the respondent,the investigations were undertaken and the petitioner had reported that he had obtained the said visa from two other 2020:DHC:3882 persons atthe cost of?1.[2] lacs.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the said contention. He states that the petitioner has not named any other person and in fact,the petitioner had not provided any visato the complainant and is not involved in the said matter.

7. According to the respondent, there is a money trail of at least ^50,000/- that has been traced from the complainant to the account of the s petitioner's wife. It is stated that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, he is not cooperating inasmuch as he is not providing the details ofother persons who are involved in the racket.

8. Considering the stand ofthe petitioner that he is not involved in any manner with providing any visa to the complainant and has not disclosed either the modus of procuring/making fake visas and/or whereabouts of other persons,ifany,involved in the said activity,it is apparent that further /-, investigation is required to be carried out.

9. The application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was rejected,inter alia,on the ground that the petitioner had not returned the amount of ?2.[5] lacs to the complainant despite undertaking the same before that Court. More importantly,the Trial Court felt that this was a case where custodial interrogation was necessary since the investigating agencies were unableto trace out otherleads.

10. It is the petitioner's stand thatthe undertaking to return a sum of?2.[5] lacs had been made by the proxy counsel who appeared for the petitioner and the same was withoutinstructions. It s.

11. There appears to be no eontroversy that the complainant was travelling on a fake visa. The police authorities apprehended that there is a fake visa racket and,therefore,the same is required to be investigated. In this view,this Court is unable to find fault with the conclusion ofthe Trial Courtthat custodial interrogation may be warranted in this case.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC312 in support ofhis contention that the anticipatory bail should not be denied in eases where the accused has joined the investigation and is hilly cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submits that there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding and therefore no custodial interrogation is required. There is no cavil with the principle set out in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre {supra). Plainly, in eases where the accused has joined the investigation; is cooperating with the investigating agency; and there is no flight risk, the arrest ofthe accused would serve little purpose. However,in cases where a wider racket is suspected and the necessary information leads are not forthcoming,it may be apposite for the police authorities to make extensive enquiries. In this ease, despite lapse of considerable period of time, no further leads have been found as to the modus or the racket involved in providing fake visas.

13. It also appears thatthe petitioner is changing his stand. Although,the petitioner's counsel had undertaken to return the amountto the complainant, the petitioner had resiledfrom the said undertaking on the ground thatit had been made by the proxy counsel without instructions. This Court does not appreciate this conduct. Surely, the petitioner is required to take responsibility for the statement made on his behalfby persons appearing for him.

14. Be that as it may,this Court does not consider it apposite to accede to the prayers made in this petition.

15. The petition is,accordingly,dismissed.