Sandeep Kharab vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sandeep Kharab, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 326 dated June 26, 2020, registered under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The petitioner operates a travel agency and international booking business and claims to have GST registration. He admitted receiving money from the complainant but asserted it was duly accounted for, used for providing tickets, booking foreign hotels, and arranging foreign currency as per the complainant's requests. The petitioner stated he had no further role in sending the complainant abroad and no other money was paid to him beyond these services. The State did not dispute these facts but noted the petitioner's name was specifically mentioned in the FIR and money was received in his account.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that while the petitioner's name was mentioned in the FIR and money was received in his account, it was not disputed by the State that the petitioner had fulfilled his obligations by providing tickets, booking hotels abroad, and arranging foreign currency as per the complainant's requirements. The Court also acknowledged that there were no other allegations against the petitioner beyond these services and that no other cases were pending against him. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, and he was directed to join the investigation as and when called upon and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations in the FIR and the facts presented. The petitioner argued that the case against him was concocted, his business was lawful with GST registration, and all money received was accounted for and used for services rendered, including providing tickets, booking hotels abroad, and arranging foreign currency for the complainant. He contended that he had no further role beyond these facilitated services and that there were no other cases against him. The State, while acknowledging the petitioner's name was in the FIR and money was received in his account, did not dispute that the petitioner had provided tickets, booked hotels, and arranged foreign currency for the complainant. The State also did not dispute that there were no other allegations against the petitioner beyond these services or that there were no other cases against him.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 420 IPC, Section 406 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 10 Immigration Act, 1983, Section 24 Immigration Act, 1983
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION : 23rd JULY, 2020
Sandeep Kharab
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
============ In virtual Court ============
Present: Mrs. Gursharan K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.326 dated 26.06.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, & 34 IPC and Sections 10 & 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. The petitioner is conducting business of travel agency and international bookings. He is having GST registration and doing business totally in lawful manner. The petitioner is not even denying having received the money from the complainant. However, the entire money received by the petitioner has been duly accounted for. Admittedly, the petitioner had handed over the ticket to the complainant. Besides this, the petitioner had booked the hotels abroad, as per the requests of the complainant. Still further, since the complainant was going abroad, therefore, he had engaged the petitioner to get foreign RAJ KUMAR 2020.07.23 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- currency in dollars. The petitioner had arranged for that also. Beyond this facilitation, there is no role of the petitioner in sending the complainant abroad. Even as per the allegation, no other money was ever paid to the petitioner except for the purposes mentioned above. The petitioner is not even alleged to have participated in process, except for the purposes mentioned above. The counsel has also submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Learned State counsel, being instructed by SI Surender Singh, has submitted that the name of the petitioner has been specifically mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner had even received the money from the complainant, in his account. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had handed over the tickets; had booked the hotel for the complainant and had also arranged for the dollars, as per the requirement of the complainant. It is also not disputed that there is no other allegation against the petitioner except the purpose as mentioned above. Still further, it is not disputed that there is no other case against the petitioner.
In view of the above, but without commenting anything on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds/surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
23rd JULY, 2020 ‘raj’ (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes
No Whether Reportable:
Yes
No RAJ KUMAR 2020.07.23 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.