Srinagar: In a case of cheating by a Delhi-based man claiming to be co-producer of blockbuster movie ‘Bahubali’, the J&K High Court has directed the police in Anantnag not to act as a recovery agent of the complainant and investigate the case according to law.
The direction was passed in a bail application of 34 year old Nagraj V of Defence Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner is in custody of J&K Police for offences under sections 420 IPC 467, 468 471 and 419 of IPC. The petitioner had allegedly duped a local army officer of Rs 1.06 crores for purchase of a house in New Delhi.
The petitioner claims to be a co-producer of Bahubali, entrepreneur, industrialist, besides being a politician meeting with the various political leaders and dignitaries of the country.
The “victim” had lodged a complaint before the Police Post Khanabal Sadar, Anantnag. During custody the police allowed him to telephonically talk to his family and Rs 35 lakh was transferred to the complainant.
The bail application of the petitioner, alleged to be a serial financial offender, has already been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anantnag.
After perusing the records and hearing the counsels of the petitioner “Bahubali co-producer” and the complainant army officer, Justice Rajnesh Oswal directed the “the Investigating Officer that the investigating agency is not supposed to act as a recovery agent of the complainant and the duty of the Investigating Officer is only to investigate the allegations levelled against the accused and affect seizures of the case property in accordance with law”.
The judge said “the petitioner showed false papers of the property claimed to be owned by him to the complainant and obtained the amount from the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly”.
It observed “a perusal of the Case Diary reveals that on 10.07.2024 after obtaining the search warrant, the search of the house bearing No. D-132, Defence Colony New Delhi where the petitioner was in fact residing as a tenant was conducted and from the premises, one photocopy of the sale deed dated 24.01.2023 was seized”.
The bench said the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. “……However, this Court deems it proper to direct the SSP concerned to supervise and monitor the investigation himself to ensure fair investigation and further, the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible”.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned court afresh for grant of bail, after the chargesheet is filed, directed the4 court.
