google.com, pub-8701563775261122, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
Hollywood News

Delhi HC denies bail to man impersonating as Amit Shah’s nephew, cheating businessman

The Supreme Supreme Court of Delhi rejected a man accused of deceiving a 3.9 -crore businessman by imitating the nephew of Union Interior Minister Amit Shah.

Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the bail considering the nature of the claims of the defendant Ajay Kumar Nayyar.

“Considering the quality and expansion of the allegations against the defendant/applicant (Nayyar), it does not find a lawsuit by taking into account the responsible change in the IPC section of 467/471/120B IPC, and at the same time, at this stage, by ensuring that the criminals continue to sue for bail.

The man claimed that he had received 90 Crore tender from the central government to supply the president’s property to renew the president’s property.

According to the prosecutor’s office, the complainant represented Nayyar as Mr. Shah as his nephew Ajay Shah, and when he allowed the complainant to receive a government contract tender, he was introduced to the defendants through a family friend in Jalandhar Gymkhana Club.

The complainant was later shown a 90 crore request draft in favor of the company and asked him to pay 2.5 Crore as transaction fees.

After a few meetings with the defendant, 3.90 crore paid by the complainant on different occasions by the cash and RTGs for the tender, but Nayyar showed a photo of another request draft La 127 Crore and said that the tender cost rose from ₹ 90 Crore to 127 Crore.

When the complainant felt that he was deceived, a police complaint was opened and the defendant was arrested in December 2021.

Nayyar requested bail on the grounds that the charges were framed in 2022 and that the hearing would take a long time.

The prosecutor may be punished for changing the accusation and the use of tattoo checks by the defendants given to the complainant as a security conspiracy and the complainant to the complainant.

The prosecutor claimed that the defendant was involved in a similar trick case where he settled 75 lakh to the complainant.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button