Tanveer Ali S/O Jahid Ali vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. While acknowledging the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy, the Court considered the material on record, including the petitioner's Udyog Aadhar Card, his GST registration certificate, and the email dated 23.07.2019. The Court also took into account the petitioner's submission that he had no criminal antecedents and that the FIR suggested the involvement of another individual in handing over the tickets and visas. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it just and proper to grant pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, and to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India without prior court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Tanveer Ali, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 09/2020 registered at Police Station S.O.G. Jaipur for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner, operating as a travel agent since 2005 under the name ALFA HRD Services, presented an Udyog Aadhar Card. He contended that he only booked tickets for four persons, including the complainant, based on an email received on 23.07.2019. He denied assuring the complainant about arranging working visas and stated he had no criminal antecedents. The respondent, State of Rajasthan, opposed the bail application, alleging the petitioner conspired with co-accused and that a warrant under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, was issued against him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he operated as a travel agent and only performed ticket booking as per an email, without making any assurances regarding working visas. He emphasized his lack of criminal antecedents and the existence of his Udyog Aadhar Card and GST registration as evidence of legitimate business operations. He relied on the fact that the FIR itself indicated that visas and tickets were handed over by another individual, Praveen. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy with other co-accused and that a warrant had been issued against him under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, implying his involvement in the alleged offences.