GAURAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.31 dated 12.2.2019 under Sections 420/34 IPC at Police Station City-I, District Sangrur.

(2.) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Jaspreet Singh wherein it has been alleged that Gaurav Kumar (petitioner) and his wife Maninderjit Kaur held out a representation that they could send the complainant and two of his friends to Poland and that they would charge an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs per person. It is further alleged that the complainant as well as his other two friends namely Jalvir Singh and Rajvir Singh of the same village paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as advance to the petitioner and that the petitioner and his wife represented that they would first arrange Visa of Armenia and thereafter the complainant and others would be shifted to Poland. It is alleged that after the aforesaid payment of 1 lakh each made by complainant on 9.1.2018, the petitioner raised the demand of the balance of Rs. 3 lakhs each per person which was also paid on 20.1.2018. The petitioner thereafter handed over Visa of Armenia to the complainant and his two friends and when they confronted that as to why the Visa of Poland not been issued, the accused represented that after working for a few days in Armenia, they would be shifted to Poland. It is further alleged that the complainant thereafter went Armenia on 24.1.2018, but they were not provided with any work/employment. It is further alleged that the complainants were received by one Barinder Sharma in Armenia, who kept on assuring them that he will organize some job for them but no job was organized and ultimately complainants were constrained to return back to India on 12.9.2018.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been involved in the present case and that there was no such assurance held by the petitioner that complainant and his two friends would be taken to Poland and that the only understanding between the complainants and the accused was that the complainants would be provided a Visa to Armenia and in fact the complainants did go to Armenia where they remained for eight months but they could not adjust themselves in Armenia and ultimately returned back.