Bail denied in job racket case

STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Rajesh Sekri Friday rejected the bail application of Arun Salaria who duped people worth lakhs of rupees in the name of job.
A complaint was lodged by Vikramjeet and three others wherein it was alleged that being unemployed they were allured by the accused, who impersonated as Railways employee and assured to arrange jobs for them subject to payment of Rs. 3.00 lakh each.
Falling in to the trap, the complainants gave Rs. 3.00 lakh each to the applicant-accused upon which he took all of them to Kharagpur, Jharkhand and kept them there for about three months but without any job and thereafter vanished in air, thereby cheating and duping them of their hard earned money. A police verification was initiated on the basis of the complaint and during the course of verification it was found that the accused after taking money from the complainants had provided fake appointment orders.
During verification it was also found that out of Rs. 12.00 lakhs paid by the complainants to the accused and an amount of Rs. 1,35,000 was credited in the account of accused maintained in PNB bearing A/C No. 0517000100158052 and the accused had withdrawn the amount through ATM from different locations.
Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Rajesh Sekri after hearing both the sides observed that it appears that the amount so duped by the petitioner/accused, is yet to be recovered, some documents have been seized by the investigating agency, which implies that other incriminating documents are yet to be recovered and seized from the accused/petitioner.
The offence under section 467 RPC is punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years and fine.
Allegations against the accused are indeed very serious in nature. Complainants on the alleged allurement of Government employment by the accused have been deprived of their hard earned money.
The investigation of the case is in progress; therefore, accused-petitioner is not entitled to the liberty of bail. With these observations Court rejected the bail application.

Comments (0)
Add Comment