Subjected To Multiple FIRs Solely For Harassment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Conman Aman Skoda In Fraud Case

Aiman J. Chishti

16 Jan 2025 7:00 AM

  • Subjected To Multiple FIRs Solely For Harassment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Conman Aman Skoda In Fraud Case

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to conman Aman Skoda accused of defrauding by taking hefty sum of money in exchange of providing government job in Punjab.Amandeep Kamboj, alias Aman Skoda, was declared proclaimed offender in other cases and was absconding for 2 years and allegedly involved in 48 FIRs. He was arrested in Varanasi in March, 2024 by Punjab Police.It was alleged...

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to conman Aman Skoda accused of defrauding by taking hefty sum of money in exchange of providing government job in Punjab.

    Amandeep Kamboj, alias Aman Skoda, was declared proclaimed offender in other cases and was absconding for 2 years and allegedly involved in 48 FIRs. He was arrested in Varanasi in March, 2024 by Punjab Police.

    It was alleged that Skoda along with another co-accused took Rs.30 Lakh from the complainant on promise of securing a seat in Punjab Civil Services for a candidate. 

    While noting the submissions that multiple FIRs was lodged based on similar allegations, Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "it is apparent that the petitioner is being subjected to the registration of multiple FIRs, solely for the purpose of harassment."

    The Court was hearing plea for regular bail filed by Amandeep Kamboj (Aman Skoda) who was booked under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Punjab's Fazilka.

    According to the complaint while taking the money Skoda assured the complainant that the job in Punjab Civil Services would be arranged for a total sum of Rs. 80 lakhs, with Rs. 30 lakh be paid as an advance and the remaining Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid after the PCS results were cleared. Accordingly he allegedly took Rs. 30 lakh and refused to return the amount when the name of the complainant's candidate did not appear in the result.

    Counsel for Skoda Nikhil Ghai submitted that amount was given to the co-accused, Satbeer, who has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Apex Court.

    He contended further that petitioner is being implicated in one after the another FIRs as many as more than 40 FIRs, wherein, he has been granted either regular bail or anticipatory bail.

    The State Counsel opposed the bail stating that Skoda is involved in as many as 48 other cases of similar nature, meaning thereby, he is a habitual offender.

    After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner's co-accused, Satbeer, to whom the alleged amount is said to have been transferred, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. It further noted that the several other FIRs are also lodged on similar allegations.

    Justice Moudgil elucidated further, stating that the "Court is conscious of the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98."

    With respect to other FIRs, the Court said, "no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt."

    Reliance was placed on Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022] wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases.

    "Eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail," the Court added.

    In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.

    Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

    Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

    Title: AMANDEEP KAMBOJ @ AMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 15 


    Next Story