The central legal point established is that fraudulent allurement for financial gain, non-cooperation with investigation, and suspicious financial transactions can lead to denial of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Case taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 36 dated 25.06.2020 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station City Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is a single lady and a retired school teacher, on coming in contact with the petitioner, a property dealer, disclosed to him that she was facing some litigation qua her property in Ludhiana. On this the petitioner told her that she need not worry as he would take care of her litigation by engaging a good legal team for her. The petitioner further assured the complainant of good returns on investment made through him. On being lured by the petitioner, the complainant, from her savings transferred/gave funds/gold ornaments to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,19,00,000/- out of which Rs. 71,00,000/- were transferred from the complainants/friends/ relatives bank accounts to the bank accounts of the petitioner and his wife Sarabjit Kaur and the remaining amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- was given in the form of cash/gold jewellery. The petitioner, after having received the aforesaid amounts, duped the complainant as neither was such amount invested nor returned.

4. Qua the litigation that the complainant was pursuing in the District Courts at Ludhiana, it is the case of prosecution that the petitioner, by playing fraud with the complainant got her to execute in his favour a Special Power of Attorney on the basis whereof he started pursuing the litigation/negotiating a deal by projecting himself to be the owner of the complainant's property. When the complainant came to know of it she contacted her advocate and got the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; Rs. 18 lakhs has been returned by the petitioner to the complainant through bank transactions; Rs. 55,65,000/- has been returned by the petitioner to the complainant in cash and in this regard attention of this Court was drawn to a receipt dated 08.09.2016 by the complainant; the FIR itself has been illegally registered at Ahmedgarh as no cause of action arose over there and that under the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner has joined investigation.

6. Learned State counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by contending that the FIR in question does not lack jurisdiction as the complainant resides in Ahmedgarh; part of the cause of action arose in Ahmedgarh as amounts from the complainant's brother's bank account at Ahmedgarh had been got transferred by the complainant to the petitioner's bank account; cash and gold articles were also given by the complainant to the petitioner in Ahmedgarh; the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating agency; gold articles as also huge amounts paid to the petitioner are still to be recovered and that the petitioner has taken contradictory stands before this Court showing mala-fides on his part.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the relevant record perused.

8. The petitioner, who is a property dealer, is alleged to have fraudulently allured the complainant, a single lady and a retired school teacher, to part with her savings as also gold jewellery to the tune of Rs. 1,19,00,000/- on the pretext of getting the same invested for her. However, after having received the complainant's money/gold articles and retained it for a prolonged period of time there is nothing on record to show that any investment was made by the petitioner on the complainant's behalf.

9. The case set up by the petitioner is that in addition to Rs. 18 lakhs transferred by him into the complainant's bank account, he has returned to the complainant an amount of Rs. 55,65,000/- in cash and in support of such plea, through a miscellaneous application,