Flagging growing prevalence of immigration fraud rackets, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that there is “urgent need to adopt a stringent approach to deter such conduct.”
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, “Crimes involving immigration fraud have reached alarming proportions in recent years. Unsuspecting individuals are often lured with promises of overseas employment or education, and are made to part with substantial life savings.”
The Court said that these frauds are frequently orchestrated by agents and touts who operate outside the regulatory net. In many instances, victims are either left stranded, defrauded, or worse, find themselves in legal peril in foreign jurisdictions.
“This Court is conscious of the growing prevalence of such rackets and the urgent need to adopt a stringent approach to deter such conduct,” it added.
These observations were made while hearing the anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC.
It was alleged that the petitioner Gurbir Singh, along with co-accused, have duped the complainant of a substantial sum of money on the pretext of sending his son a to United Kingdom.
Counsel for Singh submitted that he is merely a travel agent who deals in booking air tickets, and not a visa consultant or immigration agent.
The petitioner only introduced the complainant to one co-accused, Ramandeep Singh, who was purportedly running a visa consultancy firm and the complainant, being acquainted with the petitioner, deposited a sum of Rs.23,50,000 into the account of the petitioner between 07.12.2023 and 26.06.2024, which amount was subsequently transferred by the petitioner to co-accused Ramandeep Singh, after retaining his commission, he added.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that “the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific.”
He is not a mere bystander or an incidental link in the transaction, but a direct recipient of a large sum of money, which was allegedly collected under false pretenses, added the Court.
Justice Kaul highlighted that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner acted only as an intermediary, does not absolve him of culpability, particularly when prima facie the money-trail begins and ends with him, and the end objective of sending the son of the complainant abroad, remained unfulfilled.
Consequently, it opened that “prima facie”, the petitioner, having actively participated in the financial transaction and being the initial custodian of the defrauded amount, cannot be permitted to evade investigation.
Stating that “the modus operandi adopted, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner”, the Court refused to grant the relief.
It is worthwhile to mention that in another case namely Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab, observing visa fraud if left unchecked could “tarnish the nation’s reputation on a global scale and undermine the integrity and legality of immigration systems, where one can already feel the headwinds,” the High Court said that when such a case is registered the concerned agency must verify the claim and the complainant’s credentials.