Tardy pace of probe, Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to ‘consultant agency’ owner

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a “consultant agency” owner, booked by the Chandigarh Police in a cheating case, after taking into consideration the “tardy pace of investigation”.

Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa observed only 17 out of 377 complaints had been looked into till date and apparently “the investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years”. Justice Dhindsa also took note of the fact that the petitioner had suffered incarceration for more than three years.

Arvind Ashat had moved the High Court against UT for regular bail in FIR registered on March 1, 2017, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the Emigration Act, at the Sector 3 (North) police station.

The FIR was registered on the allegations that the complainant had given Rs 4,94,000 to the petitioner for arranging visas for students wishing to pursue studies abroad as he was stated to be running a consultant agency for the purpose. Apparently during the course of investigation, around 377 persons raised similar allegations, Justice Dhindsa observed.

Appearing before Justice Dhindsa’s Bench, the UT counsel submitted five challans covering offences alleged by 14 complainants had been filed. The sixth supplementary challan had also been prepared by the investigating agency after conducting inquiry into three more complaints. It would be presented before the Trial Court in near future.

“The petitioner has already faced incarceration since April 26, 2018. The factual premise that investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody and particularly keeping in view the slow pace of investigation,” Justice Dhindsa further observed.

Disposing of the petition, Justice Dhindsa added the money alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced. Prayer for bail by the petitioner after suffering incarceration for over three years could not be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount should first be refunded.

The investigation/trial was bound to take time to conclude. It was not the prosecution’s case that the petitioner would be in a position to hamper the course of investigation, besides a free and fair trial, if granted the benefit of bail, Justice Dhindsa concluded.