RAKESH RANA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Sec. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.PC'), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 323 of 2017 dtd. 13/12/2017, registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur.

(2.) Status report stands filed wherein it is stated that FIR in present case was registered on the basis of joint complaint dtd. 13/12/2017, submitted by complainants Ashish Kumar, Nitin Verma, Pooja Devi, Surjit Kumar and Suresh Kumar to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur alleging therein that petitioner Raj Verma and co-accused Anupama, in criminal conspiracy with each other had cheated the complainants and had extorted money from them by impersonating Raj Verma as Senior CEO in Reserve Bank of India with assurance that on payment of money to accused persons, complainants shall be posted against some good Government posts and further that complainants were made to believe that accused persons shall manage good job for them and thus believing the accused persons that they will help them in interview, providing job on payment of money in lacs to accused persons, the complainants transferred the money to accused persons and thereafter, accused persons had given appointment letters to complainants for appointments in different branches of PNB Bank and Canara Bank etc. But, Branch Managers of those banks had disclosed to the complainants that those appointment letters are fake and fabricated, whereupon, complainants had approached co-accused Anupama and asked her to refund the amount paid by complainants, whereupon, accused Anupama had stated that accused Raj Verma (petitioner) had not met her since long and as and when he would come she would talk with him. It is further case of complainants that they had visited Chandigarh in search of petitioner, who had met them near Sunny Enclave and had assured them to return the money to them at the earliest and he had issued cheques to complainants which were signed by co-accused Anjana.

(3.) On inquiry from the banks, it was revealed to complainants that there was no sufficient amount in the accounts against which cheques were issued. Thereafter, on approaching again, accused avoided the refund of money on one pretext or other and ultimately, petitioner had threatened to kill the complainants, if they demanded money again.