Back
KULDEEP TIWARI
Sunny Bajwa – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
1. On 8.8.2024, this Court had passed the hereinafter extracted order, upon the instant petition:
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner had sworn an affidavit, thus admitting the receipt of amount for sending complainant’s son to abroad, but, he had accordingly sent the complainant’s son to New Zealand. However, when complainant’s son could not settle there, he returned to India and after return of his son, the instant FIR has been lodged by the complainant by levelling false allegations.
3. Notice of motion for 04.10.2024. 4. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and to appear before the investigating agency, as and when called upon to do so. In the event
Anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely due to non-recovery of the cheated amount; the prosecution must establish the veracity of allegations through cogent evidence.
The absence of evidence implicating the petitioner as a travel agent and the lack of grounds to deny bail based on the recovery of the amount in question were crucial in granting anticipatory bail.
The recovery of the disputed amount cannot be a prerequisite for the grant of bail, especially when no custodial interrogation is needed.
Anticipatory bail is not a right; its grant depends on the nature of accusations, potential flight risk, and ongoing investigations.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
