New Delhi [India], May 26 : A Delhi court has granted anticipatory bail to a visa agent accused of cheating a woman on the pretext of securing UK visas for her and her daughter, observing that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence and email exchanges reflecting professional services rendered by the accused.
Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja, West District, Tis Hazari Court, while allowing the plea filed by the accused, directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The court also directed the accused not to contact the victim and to join the investigation whenever required by the Investigating Officer.
The case arises out of an FIR registered at Patel Nagar Police Station. The complainant alleged that the accused had cheated her of a substantial amount in connection with visa services for the United Kingdom.
Appearing for the accused visa agent, Advocate Ujwal Ghai argued before the court that the allegations were "entirely frivolous" and that the money received from the complainant was only towards professional charges for facilitation of visa services.
He submitted that the complainant's visa applications were rejected owing to non-compliance with UK norms and the incompetence of her daughter during interviews arranged by the accused with multiple companies in the UK.
The defence further contended that the accused had never induced or lured the complainant and had previously succeeded in obtaining visas for her on several occasions. It was also argued that the dispute had been given a criminal colour despite being civil in nature.
The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail plea, contending that the accused had cheated a senior citizen woman of a huge amount and that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation and recovery of money.
However, the court noted that the offences involved were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and that the material on record mainly consisted of documentary evidence, including a series of email exchanges between the parties. The court observed that "it is not disputed that with the facilitation of the applicant/accused, the complainant was granted a visa on a number of occasions for visiting the UK."
The court also took note of the fact that the accused is a senior citizen with a permanent address and had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation.
The court further referred to the Supreme Court ruling, reiterating that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right which should be curtailed only when imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case.