Krishananand Jha vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Krishananand Jha, is seeking bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 10/24 of the Immigration Act. The FIR, lodged on 16.05.2024, alleges that the complainant was induced by Yashpal Singh Chauhan and others to pay ₹15,00,000 for Canadian and Australian visas, which turned out to be fake. During the investigation, bank records showed deposits of ₹8,15,000 into the applicant's account, and forged visas were seized. The applicant, who runs a Common Service Centre, claims his role was limited to receiving money as part of routine business transactions and that the core allegations are against co-accused. He has been in judicial custody since 03.05.2025.

Held

The Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, as well as Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, were prima facie satisfied. The Court noted that the applicant's receipt of money directly into his bank account, coupled with the seizure of forged visas, indicated participation in the conspiracy and acts of cheating and forgery. The Court found the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR to be satisfactory, as the complainant initially refrained from legal action due to acquaintance and repeated assurances. The argument that the applicant was merely operating a Common Service Centre was rejected, as statements indicated money was deposited on the instructions of a co-accused who introduced the applicant as a link in the visa process, and bank records substantiated these deposits. The Court also stated that direct recovery is not a prerequisite for offences of conspiracy and cheating, and participation in the transaction chain is sufficient. The absence of previous criminal antecedents was noted but deemed insufficient to grant bail given the gravity of the offence, involving forgery of international travel documents and substantial financial fraud. The Court concluded that the seriousness of the accusations, the collected material, and the potential risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with witnesses warranted the rejection of the bail application. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy under the IPC and Immigration Act? The applicant argued that he has been made a scapegoat, that his banking transactions were routine for his Common Service Centre, and that the primary allegations of fraud are against co-accused. He contended that the complainant's acquaintance was with Yashpal Singh Chauhan, from whom all representations originated. The applicant also highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of direct recovery or attribution of forged documents to him. He further submitted that having been in custody since 03.05.2025 and with the charge sheet filed, further detention serves no purpose. The State opposed the bail application, submitting that investigation established the applicant's complicity in the fraudulent visa racket. They pointed to statements under Section 161 CrPC by the complainant and witnesses implicating the applicant, and that money was deposited into his account on the instructions of Yashpal Singh Chauhan. The State argued that the delay in FIR lodging was explained by the complainant's initial trust and subsequent realization of fraud. They also contended that the seizure of forged documents corroborated the conspiracy and that the gravity of the offence, involving substantial sums and international travel documents, warranted denial of bail, especially given the applicant's residence in another state.