Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Major Job Fraud Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has delivered a significant ruling by denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of orchestrating a sophisticated job fraud scheme. The accused, Sudhir Kumar, allegedly swindled Rs 11.5 lakh from another individual under the false pretense of securing employment in the United States.
Court Directs State Government to File Objections
A single bench presided over by Justice Siddharth Sah heard the application filed by the accused and issued a clear directive. The court has ordered the state government to formally submit its objections in this matter, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The next hearing in this case has been scheduled for Tuesday, marking a critical juncture in the legal proceedings.
Detailed Timeline of the Alleged Fraud
The case originated from a complaint filed by Puran Chandra Pandey, a resident of Haldwani, at the Jaspur police station in Udham Singh Nagar district. According to the complaint, the fraudulent activity began in 2020 during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Sudhir Kumar, a resident of Jaspur, allegedly convinced Pandey to pay Rs 11 lakh with the promise of arranging a job and visa for the United States.
When the promised visa failed to materialize, Pandey exerted pressure on Sudhir to return the substantial sum of money. In 2022, Sudhir reportedly informed Pandey that the visa processing was underway but required an additional payment of Rs 50,000. Despite making this extra payment, the visa was still not issued, leading to further frustration and demands for legal action.
Discovery of a Forged Visa Document
In a startling development last year, Sudhir allegedly provided Pandey with a visa document that was later discovered to be completely fabricated. The fake visa bore an issue date of August 23, 2025, a clear indicator of its illegitimacy. Subsequent verification processes confirmed that no such visa had ever been issued by United States authorities, exposing the document as a deliberate forgery.
Initial Police Inaction and Subsequent Case Registration
Puran Chandra Pandey reported that he initially filed a complaint at the Jaspur police station, but no concrete action was taken by the local authorities. It was only after he escalated the matter by filing a complaint with higher authorities that a formal case was registered. This delay highlights potential issues in the initial response to the fraud allegation.
The Uttarakhand High Court's decision to deny anticipatory bail underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing financial fraud cases with appropriate rigor. This ruling serves as a warning to individuals involved in similar deceptive practices, reinforcing that the legal system will not tolerate such exploitation of trust and financial vulnerability.
