HC denies bail to ‘parliamentary secy’ of Maneka Gandhi in cheating case

More than a year after a criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy case was registered at a police station in Panchkula, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Kamal Kant, said to be parliamentary secretary of former Union minister Maneka Gandhi.

The complainant in the case, a labour contractor, had pressed charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation against three persons, including Kant, on the pretext of securing a contract with the Central government and causing wrongful loss to him to the tune of Rs 45 lakh.

In its reply placed before the Bench, the state through a deputy superintendent of police claimed that co-accused Manoj Kumar was arrested on March 22. It added that Kumar in his statement said he allured the complainant on pretext of securing government contract in return of 10 per cent commission. “He further stated that he intentionally allured the complainant after showing the photos of the co-accused Yatinder Sharma and Kant with Maneka and Varun Gandhi and also assured the complainant of getting a government labour contract in UP.”

It was added that he in December 2021 asked the complainant to come and meet Yatinder and Kant at his house. “Further, he has allured the complainant on the pretext of providing a labour contract in UP for Rs 5 crore in return of commission of 10 per cent i.e. Rs 50 lakh. In this regard, the complainant paid Rs 45 lakh on different dates to accused Kumar,” the reply added.

It was further stated that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was required to recover Rs 6 lakh, “which had come in his share and also to find the fact that how the present petitioner had intentionally grabbed Rs 45 lakh after using the name of the high-profile politicians.”

Vehemently denying the allegations, Kant on the other hand submitted that vague and baseless allegations had been made against him. The entire story regarding the petitioner meeting the complainant through Kumar at his residence was without any basis. “The allegations in the present case, at best, pertain to Kumar, who allegedly defrauded the complainant, under the guise of securing government contracts. It is reiterated that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with either the complainant or Kumar,” it was added in the bail plea.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted that the petitioner’s conduct in not joining the investigation pointed out that the same was not likely to proceed any further if bail was granted because of his “conduct in not joining the investigation”.

The court added: “When the petitioner did not join even when his anticipatory bail order had not been finalised, it can be well imagined that there is no possibility of the petitioner joining the investigation if he gets bail. Even otherwise, as per the FIR, the petitioner was present in the meeting when the commission was demanded to grant the contract. Subsequently, the investigation indicates that the petitioner had received his share of the cheated amount. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, prima facie, points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail.”