Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Saleem Ahmed with Ms. Charu Dalal, Mr. Mayank Dawar, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh and Mr. Amit, Advocates.
  • Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.
  • SI Rakesh Sharma, PS Kalkaji.
Judges
  • Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Acts
  • Sections 420/34 IPC, Uttara Kannada District, Police Station Karwar
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Saleem Ahmed with Ms. Charu Dalal, Mr. Mayank Dawar, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh and Mr. Amit, Advocates.
  • Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.
  • SI Rakesh Sharma, PS Kalkaji.
Judges
  • Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Acts
  • Sections 420/34 IPC, Uttara Kannada District, Police Station Karwar
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, Surya Pratap Singh & another, sought transit bail in respect of FIR No.55/2019 registered under Sections 420/34 IPC at Karwar Town Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka. The FIR alleges that the complainant and others had approached M/s Overseas Advisors Pvt. Ltd., of which the petitioners are directors, for visa services; Rs.80,000 per person (total Rs.4,34,000) was paid and transferred through banking channels, but visas were not granted, leading to the complaint. The petitioners contend they were falsely implicated, that they only provided visa-application services without assuring grant of visas, and that the company's bank accounts and petitioner No.2's personal account have been attached. The petitioners sought transit bail to enable them to approach the concerned court in Karnataka for protection and offered to deposit Rs.1,00,000. The matter was heard by the High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioners should be granted transit bail to enable them to approach the concerned court in Karnataka for seeking appropriate protection.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners have been falsely implicated.
  • The company was to provide services for making visa applications and never assured grant of visas.
  • Payments (total Rs.4,34,000) were made and transferred through bank channels.
  • The company's bank accounts and petitioner No.2's personal account have been attached.
  • Transit bail is sought so the petitioners can approach the concerned court in Karnataka for protection.
  • The petitioners offered to deposit Rs.1,00,000.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court stated it would not comment on the merits of the case. Having regard to the averments in the petition for transit bail, the court concluded that limited protection should be afforded to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the competent court in Karnataka. On that basis the court granted transit bail for a specified short period and imposed a temporal limitation on the protection.

Holding and Implications

GRANTED TRANSIT BAIL FOR A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS.

Direct effects: The petitioners were granted transit bail for two weeks from the date of the order to enable them to approach the concerned court in Karnataka for protection; this protection ceases on the earlier of (a) expiry of the two-week period or (b) filing of an application before the concerned court. The petition was disposed of in these terms. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or lay down any new precedent.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Surya Pratap Singh And Another v. State Of Karnataka And Another

    $~32

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    % Judgment delivered on: 07.08.2019 + BAIL APPLN. 1937/2019

    SURYA PRATAP SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners

    versus

    STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR ..... Respondents

    Advocates who appeared in this case:

    For the Petitioner : Mr. Saleem Ahmed with Ms. Charu Dalal, Mr. Mayank Dawar, Mr. Ajay

    Pratap Singh and Mr. Amit,

    Advocates.

    For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. SI Rakesh Sharma, PS Kalkaji.

    CORAM:-

    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

    JUDGMENT

    SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

    1. Petitioners seek transit bail in FIR No.55/2019 under Sections 420/34 IPC, Uttara Kannada District, Police Station Karwar Town, Karnataka.

    2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant along with several other individuals had approached M/s. Overseas Advisors Pvt. Ltd., of whom the petitioners are the Directors, for availing their visa services.

    1

    3. It is contended that Rs.80,000/- per head was paid by the complainants and a total sum of Rs.4,34,000/- had been paid to them which was transferred through banking channels but visa was not granted and accordingly, the complaint has been filed.

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He submits that the services for making an application for visa was to be provided by them and there was never any assurance given that visa would be granted by the respective countries.

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bank accounts of the Company as well as the personal account of the petitioner No.2 have already been attached. He submits that transit bail is sought so that the petitioners can approach the concerned Court at Karnataka for seeking appropriate protection

    6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are further willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh.

    7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the averments in the application, petitioners are granted transit bail for a period of 2 weeks to approach the concerned Court for seeking appropriate protection.

    8. It is clarified that this protection shall cease on the expiry of the period of 2 weeks from today or on filing of an application before the

    2

    concerned Court whichever is earlier.

    9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

    10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

    SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

    AUGUST 07, 2019

    st

    3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Surya Pratap Singh And Another v. State Of Karnataka And Another
    (Aug 7, 2019)