SAJAD RAJA @ RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sajad Raja @ Raj seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.420 dated 27.6.2020 at Police Station, Sadar, Karnal, under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of Immigration Act, wherein offences under Sections 120-B, 370 and 384 IPC were added lateron.

(2.) The FIR was registered at the instance of Gulzar, wherein it has been alleged that he had discussed the matter regarding his going abroad with Lakhwinder Singh, who told him that Raju Agent in Pehowa is doing the work of sending people abroad. In March 2019, the complainant alongwith Lakhwinder Singh, complainant's mother Sheela Devi, his uncle Nanha Ram and grandfather Ram Sawaroop went to Raju's office under the name and style of 'Vipin Tour and Travel Agency' in Pehowa, who assured that he would send the complainant abroad by legal means on the basis of work permit to America for an amount of Rs. 26 lakhs, which may be paid by the complainant after earning the same. It is alleged that in April 2019 Raju took the complainant's passport and sent him to Moscow and thereafter to Greece, Madrid, Spain and Mexico. Raju had not charged anything upto that stage. After reaching Mexico, the complainant met 'Donker', who took him to his house, where he remained for 5-6 days and where he raised a demand for money. The complainant informed his family regarding the demand of Rs. 26 lakhs, upon which his family gave the said amount to Raju through commission agent Balwant Singh. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner was made to cross over the wall to America from Magsikli, but upon reaching there, he was caught by the police on the border and was kept confined there in jail. When the complainant called Raju, he told him to get another amount of Rs. 5 lakhs delivered at his house, which was accordingly got delivered. The complainant, however, remained in jail for 14 months and thereafter was deported back to India on 23.6.2018.

(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.