Aman Bawa @ Raghav Kapoor vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Aman Bawa, sought regular bail in three FIRs registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The FIRs alleged that the petitioner and his accomplices, owners of M/s Leisure Holidays, defrauded parents of 148 children by collecting Rs. 2,80,000/- per child for a trip to NASA, USA, which never materialized. While some amounts were returned, a significant portion remained unrefunded. The petitioner argued that his mother, Anju Bawa, owned the travel agency and possessed a valid license and GST registration. He claimed he was falsely implicated due to his relationship with his mother and that a civil suit for rendition of accounts was filed by the agency against the school. He also pointed out that his father, a co-accused, was granted bail, and he himself had been granted bail in a prior FIR with similar allegations.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been granted bail in a previous FIR registered on similar allegations. It was also observed that the petitioner had been in custody since June 20, 2022, and had undergone more than nine months of custody. The Court considered that the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate and that the trial was likely to take a long time. Furthermore, a co-accused, Rajinder Singh Bawa (father of the petitioner), had already been granted regular bail. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. The petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds and adhering to specific conditions, including surrendering his passport, not leaving the country without permission, registering his mobile number, and appearing in court on every date of hearing. The Court clarified that its observations were not a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of cheating and fraud, and the amount in dispute, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated as the travel agency was owned and operated by his mother, who held the necessary licenses and GST registration. He argued that the failure to conduct the trip was due to visa issues and that the remaining funds were for advance bookings and service charges, not misappropriation. He highlighted that his father, a co-accused, had been granted bail and that he himself had received bail in a previous FIR with identical allegations. He also submitted that the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate and that his continued custody would serve no useful purpose. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offences and the pendency of three other cases against the petitioner. The State also noted that the petitioner had undergone more than nine months of custody.