BINDUBEN VINODBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred under sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11210022222102 registered with Kapodra Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under sec. 420 of IPC.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the alleged offence is said to have been committed after April 2022. However, the applicant had returned to India from Singapore in October 2021 and had never gone to Singapore since then. Further, no amount as alleged in the FIR has been transferred to the Bank account of the applicant. No ingredients of the offence u/s.420 IPC are made out in this case. In fact, there was business dealing of clothes between the two and since some dispute had occurred in relation to the delivery of clothes, the impugned FIR came to be filed by levelling false allegations and thereby, a civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal color. Further, the applicant is a lady accused. It was, accordingly, urged to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant by releasing her on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Heard learned advocates on both the sides. As per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the complainant had met the applicant in Singapore, who had made to believe him that she was engaged in the business of providing Work Permit Visa and rented accommodation in Singapore. As the complainant was desirous to get employed in Singapore, he agreed to pay the amount so demanded by the applicant as Fees. Along with the complainant, two of his friends, who were also desirous to work in Singapore, paid the amounts so demanded by the applicant towards Work Visa Permit. In all, the complainant and two of his friends, paid Rs.9,95,000.00 to the applicant through online bank transfers. However, the applicant neither got Work Permit Visa issued in favour of the complainant or had arranged the rented accommodation nor had returned the amounts collected towards Fees. Insofar the submission regarding business of clothes is concerned, no material has been produced to suggest that any such business dealing existed between the applicant and the complainant.