|
|
| Breaking News : |
|
|
 |
Photo Gallery |
 |
|
|
|
| |
news details |
|
|
| Court denies pre-arrest bail to person involved in Rs 2.13 cr fraud | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 23: Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina rejected the pre-arrest bail application of one Kamal Gupta who was allegedly booked by the Crime Branch in Rs 2.13 crore fraud.
As per the report which has been submitted by the Crime Branch Jammu, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant Raju Choudhary, who is the Managing Director of KC Hundai Jammu. In the complaint it is alleged that accused/applicant Kamal Gupta along with co-accused Rohit Patel of Gandhi Nagar Jammu and Masood Ahmed Bhat Proprietor Real Automobiles Anantnag Kashmir have committed fraud and misappropriated huge amount of Rs 2.13 crores in M/s KC Auto Mart Ltd Jammu and are guilty under section 409/34/416/417/405/420 of RPC. That further audit is in progress to arrive at the final figures. It was also mentioned in the complaint that Kamal Gupta was employed as Manager Accounts since inception of the operation of the said company in 2009.
Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina after hearing both the sides observed that applicant/accused qualifies more for rejection of anticipatory bail than for grant of the same. The whole chain of facts which have been revealed in the fore going paras manifestly speaks of unbecoming conduct of applicant during the course of preliminary verification by the Investigating agency. The incriminating material on record prima facie suggests his full complicity in the commission of the offence resulting into huge loss to the complainant company coupled with breach of trust as he was entrusted with an important responsibility of accounts section.
Court further observed that the counsel for applicant claimed for protection of right to life and liberty of the applicant/accused but as held in P Chidambaram case (supra) "it cannot be said that refusal to anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the applicant under 21 of the constitution."
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this application as put forth before the court by the prosecution, Court is of consciously convinced that accused/applicant is not entitled to this extraordinary remedy. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. --(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
All Rights Reserved � 2006-2012 early Times Newspaper Jammu. Site Designed & Developed by  |
|
|
