Ad Blocker Detected
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has denied bail to two persons who allegedly ran a money chain in Jammu and Kashmir and fled scamming many people of their money.
Facts of the case:
The accused Zafar Iqbal and Zaheer Abass were running a private company in the name and style of Hablas Pvt. Ltd. where they have collected money from the people with the motive to double the money within a month.
The complainants also alleged that the alleged accused doubled the money of various people in the area. The accused were running this fraudulent company from near about 08 months and thereafter have disappeared from Tehsil Mendhar and did not double their money.
It was also alleged that the alleged accused persons cheated the complainants and are wandering in Jammu, Delhi and at various places in India.
It was stated by the learned counsel for the applicant in the Bail Application that the name of Zafar Iqbal never figured in the FIR and that it was only after the investigation that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the respondent without any cogent proof.
Interpretation of law:
The main grounds in the application was that no criminal offence was made out from the bare perusal of the Preliminary Charge Sheet against the applicant, but still, the applicant has been put behind the bars by the respondent based on a false and frivolous complaint, in which nothing has been said against the applicant.
The applicant moved an application for grant of bail before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Mendhar which came to be dismissed without considering the merits of the application.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta while denying the bail relied upon the judgments Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Vs Versus Ramendu Chattopadhyay and Republic of India (C.B.I.) vs Ashis Chatterjee and held, “Having regard to the material on record and since large amounts of money belonging to innocent investors have been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail