Gunvir Singh Saini vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 9219 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Date of order : December 11, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2271/2015
      GUNVIR SINGH SAINI                                    ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr.C.L. Gupta & Mr.Navdeep
                                      Sharma, Advocates.

                         versus

      GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent
                   Through:            Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                      Inspector Sarvesh Sharma Police
                                      Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
                           ORDER

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Consequent upon dismissal of application for anticipatory bail

to the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi vide

order dated 12.10.2015, the petitioner has filed the present bail

application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 in a case registered under FIR No. 189/2015 under Section

420/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station

Chanakyapuri, Delhi.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on a complaint from Sh.

Timothy Ayers, Assistant regional Security Officer, U.S. Embassy,

New Delhi, it is alleged that one Amanpreet Singh had applied for

non-immigrant visa at United States Embassy in New Delhi, who

claimed to be born on October 3, 1989 at Punjab and presented Indian

Passport No. F7466830 as proof of identity. It is further alleged in the

complaint that Amanpreet Singh submitted a visa application

disclosing that he worked at S.S. Traders and in support he had

submitted a company letter head of 'S.S. Traders'. According to the

complaint, Amanpreet Singh was going to visit a family friend, Buta

Singh Johal in Elk Grove, CA, USA, and when the Embassy Officials

asked for more information about his family friend, he could not

provide that. During interrogation, Embassy Officials were informed

that Amanpreet Singh paid Rs.50,000 to the petitioner being a visa

facilitator for completion of his visa application and he has to pay 4-5

lacs to the petitioner, after the visa is issued. The letter head provided

to support the claim of Amanpreet Singh was found to be bogus.

3. During investigation, co-accused Amanpreet Singh disclosed

that the petitioner herein is the agent in the case, who tutored him for

interview, prepared and provided the fake letterhead of 'S.S. Traders'

and had also filled the information through online Visa application,

lives in SAS Nagar, Punjab. The address of S.S. Traders was verified

and found incorrect. The search of the petitioner was made and a raid

at his residence was conducted at the instance of Amanpreet Singh but

he was not found at his residence. The print out of the communication

between accused Amanpreet Singh and the petitioner through

Whatsapp has been seized, in which the petitioner had accepted the

amount.

4. Mr. C.L. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner and co-accused Amanpreet Singh happened to be one of the

friends and classmates during his studies in class 9th and 10th and

Amanpreet Singh contacted the petitioner to know the procedures of

filling up the form for visa and the manner of interview. It is further

contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is neither a

visa facilitator nor an agent of sending the people abroad. It is

submitted that the petitioner has gone several times to US and

Australia and he was also working in Australia and he being aware of

the procedure of filling up the visa application form and method of the

interview before the embassy, and he only provided information to

Amanpreet Singh about filling up the form and to face the interview

and apart from these things, the petitioner had not provided any

document or wrong advice to him.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is

an innocent person and he had not fabricated or given any document

to Amanpreet Singh for obtaining the US visa and did not take any

amount from him. At last, it is contended that the petitioner is ready

and willing to join the investigation in this case as and when called by

the Investigating Officer and the petitioner under undertakes to

cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

6. The State has filed its status report informing that as per

disclosure of the co-accused Amanpreet Singh, for recovery of the

source of machinery where the fake letterhead and visa application

form were prepared by the petitioner, and the petitioner is to be

confronted with the alleged co-accused person for verifying the

allegations levelled in the complaint, the mobile phone of the

petitioner is to be recovered. It is further stated that the petitioner did

not join the investigation till date and evading his arrest in this case

and for unearthing the criminal conspiracy, the petitioner is required

for custodial investigation.

7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and have gone through the contents of the FIR and the

status report filed on behalf of the State.

8. It is apparent from the record that the custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is required by the prosecution to unearth the conspiracy

between the petitioner and his co-accused. It is specifically alleged

against the petitioner that he prepared fake visa and forged documents

for sending his co-accused to USA. The prosecution has sought the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner to recover the computer,

mobile phone and other incriminating material to connect him with

the commission of crime of the present case.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made

out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this

stage. However, it goes without saying that anything observed in this

order shall not have any bearing on merits of the case during trial.

10. With aforesaid observations, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 11, 2015 pkb