Court rejects bail of mother, son allegedly involved in fraud of crores of rupees

18/03/2020

Jammu, Mar 17: Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina today rejected the bail application of Shakeela Bashir and Tawseef Ahmed Bhat who duped 6.5 Crores Rupees. The prosecution case in brief against the accused-applicants is that they are the main conspirators in the commission of an offence of deceit as defined u/Sec 420 IPC whereby the main accused Ryaz Ahmed Mattoo and his wife cheated the complainant, grabbed his hard earned money amounting to Rs. 6.50 crore , left him in lurch and accused couple went underground . Gravamen of prosecution case is that a couple named Reyaz Ahmed Mattoo and Ruquaya R/O Khawja Yarbal , Nizam Colony , Saida Kadal Srinagar approached the complainant Rayees Ahmed , Prop . Wals and Walnuts Industries , Barmani Road , Sunjwan , Jammu in the year 2016 , introduced himself as dry fruit trader , having business in the name and style of "Sadaf Dry Fruit" at Vidhata Nagar, Bathindi , Jammu. Reyaz Ahmed then revealed his name as Fiaz Ahmed . He started taking dry fruit consignments , especially walnut kernels , from the complainant and made payments . After winning the confidence , told the complainant that he has got orders from Army for a huge dry fruit consignment. Believing his words , complainant supplied him huge quantity of walnut kernels of around Ten crore . 25% of the same he paid and then left to Srinagar where he went underground. After strenuous efforts he finally traced him out and he gave him cheques of an amount of Rs. 1 Crore , Fourty five Lacs and fifty thousand . When same were presented at the concerned Bank, they got bounced on account of insufficient funds . Immediately thereafter the accused couple went underground with no traces of their whereabouts till now .
On being duped at the hands of accused-couple , the complainant approached Crime Branch Jammu. Preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein the accusations were prima facie found to be correct .
FIR bearing No. 21/2019 got registered against the accused-couple for commission of offences u/Sec 420/120 RPC. During investigation it came into notice that accused introduced himself as Fiaz Ahmed and issued cheques in the name of Reyaz Ahmed Mattoo and even the bills and vouchers got issued in the name of Reyaz Ahmed which are part of the C.D file . When contradiction in name was noticed by the complainant and enquired from him , the accused misled him by stating that he is known by name Reyaz Ahmed Mattoo also and on account of his initial payments , it did not yield much doubt . The accused-couple is still on run, yet to be nabbed by the Crime Branch and the swindled money of around 6.50 crore is still un-recovered . Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina observed that the complainant has stated in his complaint and in his statement recorded by the I.O that whenever he compelled the accused for payment of his huge balance amount , accused-applicants Touseef Ahmed Bhat came to him , gave assurances for giving chance to the accused Reyaz Ahmed , just to dodge him to ensure smooth delivery of entire consignments of dry fruits to him of around Ten crore . During investigation what came to the fore that a piece of land , around 14 Marlas in size was purchased by the wife of the accused Reyaz Ahmed namely Mst. Ruqaya and transferred it to Shakeela , one of the accused-applicant , and two story building was constructed there on.
The cost of land of accused as per market value is 48,49000/- and of the house is Rs. 26,68,584 which in the sale deed has been just mentioned eleven Lacs . It is found that sale-purchase of land is made during the period when accused Reyaz and his wife went underground. And no such proof or document is produced by accused-applicant Shakeela with regard to source of money for purchasing this land from accused then construction of house there on .Court after hearing both the sides observed that in the interest of justice accused have to be kept in custody and any argument of right to life and liberty can not sustain at this stage as same can be curtailed through the process of law .
Apart , it is the corresponding right of the complainant and the society as well that required to be taken into account , which by its collective wisdom wants the accused to be kept behind the bar to save the society from the scourage of the criminality of the alleged accused and remedy the loss suffered by the accused . Finally , keeping in view the gravity of the offence based on deception which involves huge amount of more than six crores , level of accusation against accused-applicants , stage of investigation , absconding status of main accused who are prima facie found to have committed the crime and were quite hand in glove with the accused in custody , I am not at all impressed of the grounds advanced by the counsel for accused-applicants for grant of bail at this stage. With these observations court rejected the bail application.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty