SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Mohammaed Taskeen – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1799 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Mayank Goel, Mr.Chander Kant Tyagi and Ms.Manav Gupta, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP, for the state with Mr.Dipanshu Meena, Advocate SI Kuldeep Yadav, PS Chanakya Puri, Distt.New Delhi.

The power of anticipatory bail is an exceptional power that should be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a possibility of misuse or abuse of the court's process.

Headnote:ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Law - Section 420/468/471/120B - The court analyzed the facts of the case where the petitioner was accused of running a visa scam by providing forged documents to individuals applying for US visas. The court considered the seriousness of the accusations, the role of the petitioner as the alleged mastermind, and the failure to join the investigation despite a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, which outlined factors to be considered for granting anticipatory bail. The court concluded that the present case did not meet the exceptional circumstances required for anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of running a visa scam by providing forged documents to individuals applying for US visas.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was the alleged mastermind behind the visa scam and had failed to join the investigation despite a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of the accusations and the role of the petitioner as the alleged mastermind.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, which outlined factors to be considered for granting anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases where there is a possibility of misuse or abuse of the court's process.

Final Decision:

The court concluded that the present case did not meet the exceptional circumstances required for anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been moved for anticipatory bail in case FIR no.63/2023 dated 17.03.2023 registered under Section 420/468/471/120B at PS Chanakyapuri.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is running one partnership firm M/s Sahara World Management and is also a director in SWMS Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is stated to be in the business of providing international visa service. It has been alleged that the present case was registered on the complaint of Mr.Cory, M. Thomas, Assistant Regional Security Officer-Investigator, US Embassy, New Delhi. It has been alleged that two individuals identified as Mohammed Khaja Mazharuddin and Santhosh Kumar Bandi applied for non-immigrant business visa at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. In their visa application forms, they claimed to have been working as a Software Architect with Sahara World Management Services, located at H.N. 8-2-618/2/A/3, 1st Floor, Banjara Hills, Road No. 11, Hyderabad, Telangana and in support of their claims, they submitted employment documents such as appointment letters, pay slips, letters addressed to the US Consulate, Hyderabad requesting permission for them to travel to the United States for a business trip on Sahara World Management Service letterhead. However, during the interview, it was found that they did not work at Sahara World Management Services in any manner and the documents were given against consideration to them by the present petitioner. It was disclosed that Mohammed Abdul Majeed and Chandra Shekhar were also part of the same conspiracy. Therefore, the present case was registered.

3. During the investigation, Mohd. Khaja Mazharuddin and Santhosh Kumar Bandi made the disclosure statement. It came in the investigation that these two accused persons contacted the present petitioner who was working as an agent and had an office in the name of Sahara World Management Services at Banjara Hills. The petitioner allegedly assured them for a US visa and demanded Rs.2 lakhs for each, which was agreed upon by the accused persons and a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh was paid by Mohd. Khaja Mazharuddin to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid by Santhosh Kumar Bandi to the petitioner. Allegedly the petitioner Mohammed Taskeen prepared the documents produced before the US Embassy for the purpose of the visa. These documents are allegedly false documents. The investigation revealed that the arrested accused persons were in touch with the petitioner and another accused person namely Mohammed Abdul Majeed and Chandra Shekhar. The investigation also disclosed that the forged documents were sent on the WhatsApp of the arrested accused person. The raids were conducted at the office of the petitioner but it was found to be locked. During the investigation, Mohammed Abdul Majeed was arrested. The accused was not even available at his residence. The notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served upon his wife Mrs Nazia but the petitioner failed to join the investigation.

4. Learned APP submits that investigation also revealed that the present petitioner had sent total of 22 persons to the US Embassy for getting visa showing them the employees of Sahara World Management Services and most of the applicants mentioned the mobile number of the present petitioner i.e. 9951617786. Learned APP submits that from the bank statements and WhatsApp chats on being analyzed, it is found that the present petitioner is the mastermind of the case. Learned APP submits that present petitioner is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR no. 552/2019 under Section 406/420 IPC, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad and FIR No. 569/2023 under Section 406/420 IPC, PS Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused persons have already been granted bail. It has further been submitted that the computer has also been recovered from which allegedly the documents present

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top