State of Punjab v. Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.57 dated 13.03.2025 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Copy of complaint, "To the Hon'ble S.S.P. Sangrur. Subject: -Complaint for taking action against: 1. Mahinderpal, 2. Sarabjit Singh son of Mahinderpal Singh, residents of House No.657, Gali No.1, Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Sangrur who has cheated the complainant by deceiving on the pretext of sending him abroad. Sir, The complaint is as under:-1. That the complainant Jagmeet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Preet Nagar, Hareri Road, Sangrur and he is a law abiding and peace loving citizen. 2. That the complainant met the above persons in the year 2022, who do the work of sending people abroad and their office is in the name of B.M. Consultancy, near Ghanta Ghar, adjoining to Ajit Newspaper Office.

That the complainant was assured by the above persons that they do the work of sending people abroad and complainant is in young age, so they will get him an Australian CRM-M-36188-2026 2- work permit. The complainant and his family trusted the above persons and submitted documents they asked for the Australian file and they said that they would get half the money before the visa is issued and half after the visa is issued. The total payment was settled to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. 4) After submitting documents, above persons started telling complainant that they are applying for his visa, so complainant should deposit some amount with them. Thus, the complainant has so far given Rs.28,00,000/- to above persons and out of this amount, the complainant had deposited some amount in their bank account and some amount had been given in cash.

That even after long time, when neither complainant received any kind of visa nor above persons informed the complainant about the status of his visa file, then complainant and his family felt suspicion on said persons and started visiting their office more than before, then accused told complainant that the Australian government has tightened the visa issuance process, so they will return the money given by complainant soon.

It is worthwhile to mention here that when the complainant and his family reached the office of above persons at the given time, they found that the office was closed. When the complainant inquired from neighbourers, the complainant and his family were shocked that said persons by committing cheating for the huge amount, fled away by closing their office.

That the complainant had borrowed the said amount from his relatives and given to said persons. Therefore, it is requested by submitting this complaint to register an FIR against said persons for cheating the complainant and not returning back the amount of Rs.28,00,000/- on the pretext of sending him abroad and justice be delivered to the complainant. Dated: 06.12.2024. Complainant Sd/- Jagmeet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Preet Nagar, Hareri Road, Sangrur, Mobile No.90410-92106". On receiving of said complaint, Hon'ble SSP vide his office's letter No.487300/PGD marked it to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Sangrur for conducting enquiry. Sd/- Sr. Supdt of Police, Sangrur dated 13.12.2024. Regarding which, enquiry got conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Sangrur through CIA Incharge, Bahadur Singh Wala, Sangrur and after agreeing with the enquiry report, prepared his report, contents of which are as under:- "From the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Sangrur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur.

18.03.2024 and took Rs.1,05,000/- from his house, then he made payment of total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash on 18.03.2024 to Mahinderpal i.e. father of Sarabjit at the office of BM Consultancy as per the instructions of Sarabjit Singh in the presence of his friend Gurpreetpal Singh Dhiman alias Sonu son of Des Raj, resident of Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur. Apart from above, complainant Jagmeet Singh alongwith his friend Gurpreetpal Singh Dhiman alias Sonu, according to the statement of Mahinderpal i.e. father of the said Sarabjit Singh, complainant gave cash amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to Mahinder Singh on 13.09.2024 at Sarabjit Singh's office B.M. Consultancy, Sangrur. Then, even after long time, when neither the complainant Jagmeet Singh received any kind of visa nor did the said persons tell the status of the visa file of the complainant Jagmeet Singh, then the complainant Jagmeet Singh felt suspicion on opposite party Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal and started visiting their office more than before.

Upon which, Sarabjit Singh started saying complainant Jagmeet Singh that the Australian government has tightened the issuance of visas, so they will return back the money to complainant soon. Then one day, opposite party Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal closed their office and Sarabjit Singh disappeared from the said house. Then a report was obtained from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur regarding Sarabjit Singh's licence of BM Consultancy Travel Agent. According to the said record, no licence was issued by the office in the name of Sarabjit Singh, Proprietor of BM Consultancy. Conclusion Report: On perusal of enquiry report, statements, bank statement and photocopy of passport, it has been found that the opposite party Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal together opened an office in the name of B.M. Consultancy, near Ghanta Ghar, adjoining to Ajit Newspaper Office, Sangrur. According to the record, no licence was issued in the name of Sarabjit Singh, Proprietor of BM Consultancy.

Sarabjit Singh had deceived the complainant party Jagmeet Singh by taking him in his words and asked him to get his Australian visa, and the total amount of visa was fixed at Rs.40,00,000/- , half of which was to be paid before the visa was issued and half of the amount was to be paid after the visa was issued. Upon which, the complainant Jagmeet Singh came into the words of Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal and deposited total amount of Rs. 17,20,000/- in the bank accounts of the said Sarabjit Singh through different banks. Apart from above, Rs. 10,80,000/- was given in cash to the opposite party Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal. Thus, total amount of Rs.28,00,000/- was found to have been received by Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal from the complainant party Jagmeet Singh. The opposite party Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal after receiving Rs.28,00,000/- from the complainant party Jagmeet Singh, neither applied for the visa of the complainant party nor returned back the money.

In this way, Sarabjit Singh and his father Mahinderpal have done the wrong act. Therefore, from the enquiry conducted so far, Sarabjit Singh and Mahinderpal, without having travel agent licence, in collusion with each other, received Rs.28,00,000/- from the complainant Jagmeet Singh by deceiving him on the pretext of getting his visa for Australia and thus, they have committed offence under Sections 420/460/120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act. Apart from above, according to the bank statements, there is lot of money transaction between Kanwalpreet Kaur daughter of late Narinder Singh, resident of House No.B- 10, Gali No.8, Prem Basti, Sangrur and the opposite party Sarabjit Singh, therefore, the role of Kanwalpreet Kaur also requires to be enquired during investigation, so the same should be enquired. So by agreeing with the report of Incharge, CIA Sangrur, if approved, then appropriate order be issued to the SHO P.S. City Sangrur for registration of FIR under Sections 420,406,120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act against the opposite party Sarabjit Singh son of Mahinderpal, and Mahinderpal son of late Arjan Singh, residents of House No. 657, Gali No.1, Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Sangrur, District Sangrur. Report is submitted for appropriate order.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, as he was merely helping the accused in pursuing his dream of settling abroad, but when the same did not fructify to his satisfaction, the petitioner was CRM-M-36188-2026 5- implicated. Learned counsel has further submitted that, upon culmination of the investigation qua the petitioner, the challan already stands presented against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man aged about 37 years and is the sole breadwinner of his family. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, CRM-M-36188-2026 6- applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.”

5.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:-

Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.

5.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the CRM-M-36188-2026 7- accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

6. The petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 28.10.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited but 6 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 9 months and 7 days & is shown to be involved in other case/FIR(s). CRM-M-36188-2026 8- Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

23.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No