Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 30: In an alleged economic offence, the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Samar Singla, Director of SOCOMO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mohali, in FIR No. 0003/2023 registered by EOW Crime Branch, Jammu, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
The case relates to allegations that the complainant’s son had engaged the accused company for development of a taxi service mobile application for a London-based business venture. As per the complaint, the accused initially offered to provide a ready-made app for Rs 1.5 lakh, but later, on account of enhancements and customisation, the payment allegedly increased substantially.
The complainant alleged that despite payments of around Rs 90 lakh, the app was not fully delivered even after considerable delay. It was further alleged that the accused later demanded Rs 1.15 crore for the source code, though the earlier agreed amount was stated to be Rs 55 lakh.
Appearing for the applicant, the defence argued that the matter was purely contractual and civil in nature, and that even if there was any breach of contract, no criminal case was made out. It was also argued that the applicant’s custodial interrogation was not required and that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation.
The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations disclosed a serious case of cheating and criminal conspiracy involving a large amount of money. It was further submitted that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the investigating agency despite notices.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that part of the payment had been made from Jammu, and therefore, at the prima facie stage, the Magistrate as well as Crime Branch Jammu had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.
The court further observed that the subsequent conduct of the applicant, including the alleged demand of a higher amount after receiving substantial payments, showed dishonest intention which, according to the court, surfaced during execution of the contract.
The court also took note of the allegation that the applicant had not appeared before the enquiry officer, had not joined investigation despite notice under Section 41 CrPC, and had also failed to appear before the court despite directions.
Holding that the allegations involved a serious economic offence and that custodial interrogation was required, the court ruled that the applicant had failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
