2010 Ramanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (for short-IPC). The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Seema Rana, Immigration Liaison Officer, British High Commission, New Delhi. It is alleged that nine individuals applied for students Visas at the British High Commission and had supplied fake documents apparently from the same agent. The details of the packages have been summarized. Two false packages were identified in nine Visa applications, which after investigations seemed to be connected. Five applications were of AA Hamilton College and four of SAN Michael. The particulars of the packages were: All applicants were of Punjab area, that is, Crl. Misc. No. M- 26874 of 2010 [2] five from Garshankar, two from Nawanshahr and two from Ludhiana. Out of nine applicants, six applicants were married female students and five of them were taking their dependent husband along.

All five female students who were applying with their husbands had married in 2009. Seven of the applicants were going to do diploma in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Management, one was going to do diploma in Business Information System and one Advance Diploma in Business Management. Eight out of nine applicants had submitted forged bank statements from Punjab and Sind Bank. Six of Behram Branch, Nawanshahr and two of Satnaur Branch, Hoshiarpur and one from Central Bank of India, Machhiwara. The documents of all six applicants of Punjab and Sind Bank Behram Branch bore signature of some H Singh in red pen. The statements of Behram Branch and Satnaur Branch were in identical font and format. After checking with the Branch, it was revealed that the Manager’s name was Raj Mohinder Singh. It was confirmed that earlier Harbhajan Singh was the Manager, but his signatures were different from the one on the questioned documents.

Four of the applicants out of nine holding Punjab and Sind Bank Behram Branch documents had submitted a letter for the Visa officer or statement of purpose in identical wordings. Undoubtedly, the letter had been written by an agent and not by the applicants themselves. The marriage photographs submitted by two of the married female applicants had identical background which proved that the marriage was held at the same Gurdwara and the priest was also the same. The relatives Crl. Misc. No. M- 26874 of 2010 [3] and friends attending the wedding were also same; so much so the attire and jewellery of the bride were also identical. However, the applicants’ marriage details were different. In short, the allegations are that the agents had been sending persons for getting Visas to the British High Commission with fake documentations and by preparing documents which were forged. Besides, the agents had been getting the documents prepared.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner Ramanpreet Singh has nothing to do with the forgeries. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely running a consultancy in the name of Sri Consultancy. It is submitted that if any student is desirous to take admission in a University abroad then the petitioner helps those students in getting admissions and arranges offer letters for the students. However, the documents are not prepared by the petitioner and they are prepared by the students themselves. The petitioner does not even charge the amount from the students but he receives 20% of the fee that is paid by the students to the University if admission is given by the University on the recommendation of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had assisted three students out of nine as mentioned in the FIR namely Jaspreet Singh, Amandeep Kaur and Anju Banga to apply the desired University/College.

The petitioner had only helped these students to provide them with offer letters from the University/College and had not acted as an agent to apply for visas for U.K. Therefore, it is submitted that no fake Crl. Misc. No. M- 26874 of 2010 [4] documents of Jaspreet Singh, Amandeep Kaur and Anju Banga have been submitted by the petitioner. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that a fake marriage has been solemnized by Amandeep Kaur with Parminder Singh and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain his involvement in attempt to send Parminder Singh abroad on the basis of fake marriage of Amandeep Kaur with Parminder Singh. It is also submitted that the students approach the petitioner in the first instance and then he forwards them to an agent namely Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi (petitioner in CRM No. M- 26912 of 2010) who prepared various false documents. Therefore, it is submitted that the collusion and connivance of the petitioner is to be ascertained with Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the records, it may be noticed that the case relates to sending students abroad on the basis of fake and fabricated documents. In the process not only the students suffer but forgery is committed; besides, it affects the prospects of genuine students who are desirous to go abroad for their academic studies. The petitioner is said to be running Consultancy service in the name of Sri Consultancy and that he is alleged to have facilitated the marriage of Amandeep Kaur with Parminder Singh. The petitioner is said to be collecting the documents for sending the students abroad. He is also said to be forwarding the Crl. Misc. No. M- 26874 of 2010 [5] students to Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi who has been preparing fake documents. The bail application of Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi has been dismissed as withdrawn by a separate order passed today in Crl.

Misc. No. M-26912 of 2010. The police is to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner with said Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi (petitioner in CRM No. M-26912 of 2010) who is said to be sending persons abroad. Learned Senior counsel appearing petitioner has laid considerable emphasis on the affidavit of Anju Banga, a photostat copy of which has been submitted. She has deposed that she had applied for admission to U.K. through Sri Consultants and had received a Visa letter. She had not paid consultation fee to Sri Consultants and nothing was due with Sri Consultants. She had lodged her Visa application to VFS on her own to apply for student Visa to U.K. Besides, it is deposed that she had procured all the documents on her own to lodge Visa and her agent Sri Consultants had not given any kind of help to generate her document for her Visa application. However, in my view, though Anju Banga has got her Visa for going to U.K., on her own, but the role of the petitioner regarding the marriage between Amandeep Kaur and Parminder Singh is to be ascertained; besides, it is to be ascertained as to whether there is any collusion between the petitioner and Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi (petitioner in CRM No.

M-26912 of 2010). In the facts and circumstances, no ground for anticipatory bail is made out. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the police with 2 days from the Crl. Misc. No. M- 26874 of 2010 [6] receipt of copy of this order, his application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court within 2 days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. The Crl. Misc. is disposed of. September 23, 2010 Amit/ sukhpreet (S.S. SARON) JUDGE