| Jammu court denies anticipatory bail to 2 accused | | Dubai job fraud, youth’s death | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 14: In a case involving alleged overseas employment fraud and the subsequent death of a young job seeker in Dubai, the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two accused, observing that the gravity of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation did not justify granting them protection from arrest.
1st Additional Sessions Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh, while dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of Sunit Kumar and Narinder Kour, both residents of Chak Baja, Suchetgarh, Jammu, also recalled the interim protection from arrest earlier granted to them.
The case pertains to FIR No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station R.S. Pura under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), involving allegations of cheating, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation.
According to the prosecution, the accused, along with another person identified as Vicky Kumar, allegedly induced Ravi Kumar, a young man seeking employment abroad, to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of arranging employment and a work visa for Georgia.
The prosecution alleged that the accused initially obtained Rs 90,000 from the deceased towards documentation and visa processing charges. Subsequently, another Rs 7 lakh was allegedly collected on the assurance that arrangements for overseas employment had been finalised.
The investigation revealed allegations that Ravi Kumar was sent to Dubai on a tourist visa instead of the promised work visa. He allegedly remained stranded there for several months before being directed to travel to Georgia, where immigration authorities denied him entry due to deficiencies in his documents.
The prosecution further alleged that he was subsequently sent to Armenia, where he was again refused entry, forcing him to return to Dubai.
According to the case diary, when the young man demanded valid documents or a refund of his money, he was allegedly threatened and subjected to severe mental distress. He subsequently died in Dubai.
The Court noted that the investigation was still at an initial stage and that several crucial aspects, including the money trail, bank transactions, authenticity of travel documents and the individual roles of the accused, remained to be examined.
During the hearing, Advocate Deep Daler Singh Kulzem, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients were innocent, feared false implication and were willing to cooperate with the investigation. He argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Sarfraz Ahmed, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail applications, submitting that serious allegations were supported by preliminary investigative material and that custodial interrogation might be necessary to recover documents, electronic devices and other evidence.
The Court observed that the principal accused, Vicky Kumar, who is the brother of Sunit Kumar and husband of Narinder Kour, was reportedly in Georgia and was not cooperating with the investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., the Court held that the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation could not, by itself, justify the grant of anticipatory bail where prima facie allegations required consideration.
The Court observed that the investigation disclosed prima facie material connecting the petitioners with the alleged fraudulent transactions and that important aspects of the case remained unresolved.
It further noted that the seriousness of the allegations, particularly those involving an unsuspecting young job seeker who allegedly suffered considerable distress before his death abroad, weighed against granting extraordinary protection from arrest.
Holding that the applicants had failed to establish sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed their applications and withdrew the interim protection granted earlier.
The Court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail applications and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial. (JNF) |
|
