‘Partial refund doesn’t nullify cheating’: Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects pre-arrest bail plea in UK visa fraud case

‘England visa, work permit and cheating’

• It was alleged by the complainant that the accused induced her to go to England on a five-year work permit visa and, on that pretext, obtained Rs 1.1 lakh in 2023.
• The complainant further claimed that the accused collected copies of her passport, Aadhaar card, photographs and visa and even got her medical examination conducted at a healthcare diagnostic lab.
• Subsequently, however, the accused allegedly stopped responding to her calls, and neither arranged the promised visa nor returned the money, and therefore allegedly cheated her.

Observation: Multiple FIRs, gravity of offences

• The petitioner allegedly collected and retained the complainant’s personal and travel documents and arranged her medical examination, which points out that she was participating in and controlling the entire process.
• The behaviour of the petitioner, which included receiving money, retaining documents, failing to procure any visa, and, after the same, avoiding communication with the complainant, prima facie indicates dishonest intention from the very start.
• The allegations against the petitioner are not vague but are supported by documentary and electronic evidence collected during the investigation.
• The evidence placed on record suggests that the petitioner is allegedly involved in other cases of a similar nature. This prima facie suggests that the petitioner has a systematic method to defraud innocent persons desirous of going abroad.
• The accusations levelled against the petitioner are “serious” in nature and include cheating and unlawful engagement in immigration activities without a licence as provided under the Immigration Act.
• The consideration of the gravity of the accusations, the alleged specific and active role of the petitioner, the nature of the evidence collected, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation suggests that the case is not fit for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Money received on behalf of husband: Petitioner’s plea

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Lakshay Bector argued she was falsely implicated in the case and the First Information Report (FIR) would show that no offence is made out against her.
• It is argued that the allegations are exaggerated and have been levelled only with a view to pressurising the petitioner.
• The petitioner is not engaged in any immigration business, and it is her husband who is running such a business.
• The petitioner has allegedly received the amount only on behalf of her husband and had no independent role in the alleged transaction.
• Section 420 is not attracted in the present case since there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very start of the transaction.
• Bector argued that the dispute is of a civil nature since it arises out of non-fulfilment of an alleged promise regarding visa processing.
• He further argued that out of the total alleged amount of Rs 1.12 lakh, the petitioner has already paid Rs 1 lakh to the complainant, indicating her good intention and negating any dishonest intention.
• Bector lastly prayed for pre-arrest bail, stating that his client has not been declared a proclaimed offender in any case and is ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

‘Habitual involvement’: State’s submission

• On the contrary, Deputy Attorney General Hardeep Singh Wadhwa submitted that the investigation has revealed that multiple FIRs of a similar nature are already registered against the petitioner, which reflects a pattern of conduct and habitual involvement in immigration fraud cases.
• Wadhwa also opposed the pre-arrest bail plea, stating that serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.
• He further highlighted that the petitioner has projected herself as competent to arrange a five-year work permit visa for England and induced the complainant to pay the amount through digital transactions on different dates.
• She also collected all the documents required for a work permit in England and exercised complete control over the process.
• She received the money from the complainant but failed to procure any visa or lawful documentation and intentionally avoided communication with her.
• During verification and initial inquiry, it was noted that the petitioner was indulging in immigration-related activities without possessing any valid licence or statutory authorisation under the immigration laws.
• The role of the petitioner is central, direct and unequivocal, and the allegations disclose dishonest intention from the very inception.
• The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unfold the larger conspiracy, trace other victims, and recover documents and electronic evidence.