Delhi's Patiala House Court grants bail to police head constable in cheating case
Mar 13, 2024
New Delhi [India], March 13 : The Patiala House Court granted bail to the Delhi police head constable in a Cheating Case lodged at RK Puram police station on Wednesday. Additional Sessions Judge Kiran Gupta accepted the arguments of Amit Sahni, Counsel for Delhi Cop and granted bail to the accused Amit Yadav.
The matter was registered based on a complaint made by one Sanjay Aggarwal resident of New Friends Colony, Delhi in November 2019 alleging that Delhi Police Head Constable Amit Yadav had misappropriated his funds to the tune of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety-Five Lakhs Only) on the pretext of investing the same in various committee groups.
The FIR alleged that the accused head constable has been operating committee groups and he used to collect payments for investing and returning the same with interests.
During the investigation, one committee member namely Subhash Sharma, a Khanpur resident of Delhi also came forward alleging that he had also been cheated by Delhi Police Cop Amit Yadav to the tune of Rs. 92,00,000. He also levelled allegations against the family members of Yadav.
It was alleged by the complainants that there are several victims and the accused Head Constable has cheated various victims for several crores, therefore the investigation of the matter was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
The court noted that the complainants have not produced any MOU or agreement or document that supports their claim of having invested money in the committee at the instance of the Head Constable.
Amit Sahni, an advocate appearing on behalf of the cop, submitted that the allegations containing in the diary cannot be looked into as they are not part of the charge-sheet. It was also submitted that the evidence in the present case is documentary in nature and the same has been seized by the investigating officer, so there is no chance of tampering with the same.
It was also submitted that the alleged telephonic conversation cannot be taken into consideration since the original devices were not seized by the police.
