PRABJOT SINGH VIRK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Prabjot Singh Virk seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.174 dated 26.6.2020 at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, Haryana under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of Immigration Act.

(2.) The FIR, in the present case, was lodged at the instance of Lovepreet Singh, wherein it is alleged that in the year 2019, Agent Prabjot Singh Virk (petitioner) met his uncle Balwinder Singh at his shop situated in Hansi Chowk, Karnal and stated that since the complainant Lovepreet Singh was umemployed, he could send him to America, where the complainant would be earning about R2 lakhs per month. The complainant's uncle got allured by the said representation made by Prabjot Singh Virk (petitioner) and it was agreed that the complainant would be sent to America. The complainant has stated that he was initially got a Visa for Europe issued and on 8.9.2019 he was made to board a flight to Europe and that while travelling through Moscow, Greece and Rome, he was sent to Mexico, where he met an agent of Prabjot Singh Virk, who took him to his house, where he was threatened for not having given any money. The complainant made a call at his home and told them to pay an amount of Rs. 22.50 lakhs as had been settled. It is alleged that infact Prabjot Singh Virk's agent even pointed a pistol at him threatening to kill him. The family of complainant being scared gave an amount of Rs. 22.50 lakhs to Prabjot Singh Virk. Prabjot Singh Virk then told the agent Donker to send the complainant to America by making him cross the border. Although the complainant objected to the same as it had been agreed that he would be sent to America legally but the accused did not pay any heed and made him to cross the border into America but the complainant was caught by the Police Authorities in America and was lodged in jail, where he remained confined for 1 year.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the petitioner had never held out any promise of sending the complainant abroad nor had received any amount as alleged to have been paid by the complainant or his family.