Rupinder Garcha @ Rupinder Singh Garcha vs. State Of Punjab
Facts
The petitioner, Rupinder Garcha, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 467 dated 31.12.2019, registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. The petitioner, who runs a consultancy firm, allegedly advised the complainant regarding immigration schemes based on age and qualifications, and provided IELTS coaching. The petitioner charged Rs. 1,00,000/- out of a total of Rs. 8,50,000/-, issuing a receipt that included GST. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation. The State counsel, on instructions, admitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and his presence was no longer required for further investigation.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The primary issue was the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, a fact admitted by the State counsel. Furthermore, the State counsel conceded that the petitioner's presence was no longer required for further investigation. Based on these admissions, the Court found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail. The order dated 04.02.2020, which had issued notice of motion, was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. No specific issue regarding GST was decided as the case was disposed of on the grounds of the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 467 dated 31.12.2019 registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had joined the investigation. This fact was admitted by the State. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel, on instructions, admitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and his presence was no longer required for further investigation.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 420 IPC, Section 24 Immigration Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.09.2021
Rupinder Garcha @ Rupinder Singh Garcha -Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab -Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Nitish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, A.A.G., Punjab. **** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing. Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No.467 dated 31.12.2019 registered under Section 420 IPC and under Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued on 04.02.2020 on the premise that the petitioner is running a Consultancy firm. The complainant was advised as per the norms keeping in view the JYOTI YADAV 2021.09.07 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- different parameters of age and qualifications. Different schemes have been provided by different countries for prov
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.