Mahi Gill Punjab State of Punjab v. ioner
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-39206- -2025 237 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39206-2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 D Balraj Kaur @ aur @ Mahi Gill Punjab State of Punjab Versus ioner ….Petitioner dent …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for th for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Pun G Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nag a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (f nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing F
Legal Reasoning
, ring FIR No.0181 dated 15.07.2024, registered for t d for the offences punishable under S f the nder Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal C enal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and ation and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police S olice Station Mataur, SAS Nagar. 2. The case set up in the FIR in que esent in question (as set out in the present petition by the by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Copy of complaint bearing no. 141 Officer, Police Station Mataur, Distric regarding fraud by travel agent on requested that I am Gurbaksh Kaur, d house number 41, Dilbagh Nagar, Ba running JAZZ Beauty Salon to support doing a good business and I have a BA on the basis of salon services. My clos The VISA Land Agency, whose head of Mohali in the year 2021 that this through PNP at a low amount and in 1416/SD/PS dated 6/7/24, "To, Head d ion istrict SAS Nagar. Subject: - application on pretext of applying visa. Sir, it is t is ur, daughter of Joginderpal, resident of t of tly Basti Guja, Jalandhar and currently not port my family. Since my salon was not a BA degree, I wanted to go to Canada da close friend Rajbir Kaur told me about out 70, d office is SCO No. 523-524, Sector 70, his agency provides visa for Canada da lso d in a short time because she had also MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39206- -2025 2 2 applied her file for going to Canad Madam Harjot and Madam Mahi, w agency, on mobile phone regarding m asked me to come to The VISA Land A 524, Sector 70, Mohali, along with my and other necessary documents. In the VISA Land Agency, whose head offic Mohali, and showed my educational q the courses I had done to Madam Har that according to my qualifications an a Canadian PR visa very soon. In this in the name of the manager visa tha Canadian PR visa, then the agency amount paid by me. (photocopy annex 50 thousand from my personal bank a through R. T.G.S to the bank account Canada PR visa at the request of (photocopy annexed herewith). 1 inqu at The VISA Land Agency office SCO mobile and by going there personall Mahi told me that your visa file is Und when your visa arrives. Even after alm was not applied by the said agency, th went to office of The Visa Land Agen Mohali. Madam Harjot and Madam owner of this agency are Kulbir Sing Singh but I was not allowed to meet t said agency could not help me in ge base of the affidavit given by the agenc of Rs 5 lakhs that I had paid to the age Mahi flatly refused. After some time, I A Agency at SCO No. 523-524 Sector 70 inquiring from the people around, t cheated many people by taking huge getting Canadian visa, in which reg registered FIRs against this agency a other police stations. The VISA Land Sector 70 Mohali has also cheated me a Canadian visa. Therefore, please re this agency Kulbir Singh, his vife Re employees of this agency Madam Harj action against the accused persons a fa faithfully Sd/-Gurbaksh Kaur 991565 Joginderpal, resident of house numb Jalandhar. Copy of complaint no. 11 To, SHO, Police station Mataur, Moh The VISA Land Agency office SCO No. No. 352/ic. Sir, it is requested that T and Consultant whose office is at SCO are issued License No. 352/ic by P Singh, son of Sukhmandar Singh res District Sri Muktsar Sahib have paid The Visa Land Mohali on date 23-05 have neither sent me to Canada nor to nada through this agency. I spoke to ed hi, who work in the above-mentioned ng my Canadian visa application. They hey nd Agency's head office, SCO No. 523- - ate my educational qualification certificate the year 2021, I personally went to The he office is SCO No. 523-524, Sector 70, 70, of nal qualification and the certificates of me Harjot and Madam Mahi. They told me s and course, their agency will give me me this regard, I was also given an affidavit vit the that if their agency fails to grant the ncy will be bound to refund the entire tire nexed herewith) I deposited Rs. S lakhs khs nk account number 2991000106096449 49 my ount of The VISA Land Agency for my of Madam Harjit and Madam Mahi ahi inquired about the status of my visa file file via SCO No. 523-524 Sector 70 Mohali via am nally and Madam Harjit and Madam Under Process and you will be informed ed r almost 2 years, when my Canada visa isa lly cy, then, I doubted them and personally gency at SCO No. 523-524, Sector 70, 70, dam Mahi while evading told that the the an Singh, his wife Reet Kaur and Nishan the et them. When I was convinced that the n getting a Canadian visa, then on the the gency, I demanded the refund of amount unt am agency, but Madam Harjit and Madam nd e, I went to the office of The VISA Land or 70 Mohali, the office was locked. On On d, they told me that this agency has has of huge amount of money in the name of regard the victims of the fraud have ave cy at the police station Mataur and at at 24 Land Agency office SCO No. 523-524 ing me of Rs 5 lakhs in the name of getting se register a case against the owner of of e Reet Kaur and Nishan Singh and the the gal Harjor and Madam Mahi and take legal ns and justice be given to me. Yours urs 5654126, Gurbaksh Kaur, daughter of of umber 41, Dilbagh Nagar Basti Guja uja 24, . 1193/SD/PS Mataur dated 13/6/2024, Mohali. Subject: - application against nst No. 523-524 Sector 70 Mohali, License nse ion at The VISA Land Mohali Immigration hey SCO-523/524 Sector 70 Mohali and they y Punjab Government. I, Samandeep eep resident of village Gandran Bhagsar sar of aid Rs. 6,40,000/- on Invoice No 34 of 05-2023 for my Canadian PR. They hey t is nor have they returned my money. It is MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39206- -2025 3 3
Legal Reasoning
requested to take strict legal action refunded to me. Thank You. Date: - The Visa Land, 2. Contract of Engag Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Samandeep Sukhmandar Singh) resident of villa district Sri Muktsar Sahib, and copy o dated 22/3/2024, To, Respected SHO, P it is requested that I, Sumer Chand S/ Jogi Majra P.o Gangheri Shahbad, di is in Ambala. In November, Decembe wife Seema Devi at The Visa Land Co Nr Gopal Sweet House. I deposited Rs. Sir, it is requested to get my 2 lakhs b Thanks. Sd/- Sumer Chand S/o Shri O Majra P.o Gangheri district Shahbad, 9416236884. Police Investigation: - at police station, then an application N dated 6/07/24 by Gurbaksh Kaur, dau No. 41 Dilbagh Nagar, Basti Guja, J lakhs on the pretext of sending abroa Station Mataur 13/6/24 by Samande resident of Village Gandran Post Of Sahib regarding fraud of Rs. 6 lakh 40 abroad and application No. 513/5D P fr from Sumer Chand son of Om Praka district Kurukshetra, in the name of se son of Gurmukh Singh owner of The V Sector 70, Mohali, Kulbir Singh Kaur Kaura, Madam Harjot, Madam Mahi were found to be correct from the app filed under Sections 406, 420, 120-B I fi Nishan Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, 524, 2nd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, Ku Singh Kaura, Ma of Kulbir XxxXXXXXXXXXXXX” X be ction against them and my money be ice 12-06-2024, annexed-1. Tax Invoice ngagement 99880-84445, 95017-75665, 65, ep Singh (Samandeep Singh son of of ar, village Gandran, post office Bhagsar, py of Complaint No. 513/5D/PS Mataur aur O, Police Station Mataur (Mohali), Sir, Sir, ge d S/ Shri Om Prakash resident of village ich d, district Kurukshetra, Haryana which mber 2023, I applied for PR file of my my d Company whose office is at Sector 70, 70, 52. d Rs. 2 lakhs. License No. of firm is 352. khs back. I will be very thankful to you. ou. ri Om Prakash resident of village Jogi ogi bad, Chandigarh, Kurukshetra, (HR) m. m. ent Today, I, Sub Inspector, was present ion No. 1416/5D Police Station Mataur aur , daughter Jogindpal resident of House use . 5 ja, Jalandhar regarding fraud of Rs. 5 e broad, application No. 1193/5D Police andeep Singh son Sukhmandar Singh gh t Office Bhagsar District Sri Muktsar sar ing h 40 thousand on the pretext of sending D Police Station Mataur dated 22/3/24, 24, rakash resident of village Jogi Majra jra gh f sending abroad, against Nishan Singh or, he Visa Land SCO 523-524, 2nd floor, aura, Reet Kaura wife of Kulbir Singh gh ahi were received. The circumstances ces is applications. The above application is nst B IPC & 24 Immigration Act, against ngh, Owner, The Visa Land, SCO 523- - i, Kulbir Singh Kaura, Reet Kaura, Wife ife hi. Madam Harjot, Madam Mahi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner titioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 07.11.2024. Learned coun t the d counsel has further argued that the petitioner has r has been falsely implicated into th rned into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has f has further submitted that, in fact, mely fact, it is the co-accused namely Nishan Singh Singh who is the main accused as the ng in as the petitioner is only working in the firm owne owned by the said accused. Learned itted earned counsel has further submitted that the petitio petitioner is a lady aged about 31 year ayed years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 4 CRM-M-39206- -2025 4. Learned State counsel has opp n by s opposed the present petition by arguing that that the allegations raised are seri the re serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does r does not deserve the concession of t State on of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks seeks to place on record custody ce 5 in ody certificate dated 29.07.2025 in Court, which i hich is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the part h the e parties and have gone through the available recor e records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 07.11.2024 whereinafter investigation ation was carried out and challan w e on llan was presented in the case on 09.01.2025. T 25. Total 13 prosecution witnesses e has esses have been cited, but none has been examined amined till date. It is, thus indubitab trial ubitable that conclusion of the trial will take its ow e its own time. It is not in dispute tha the ute that the trial emanating from the FIR is magist magisterial one. The rival contentio se to ntention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issu le issues which shall essentially be the ly be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial f trial. This Court does not deem it into em it appropriate to delve deep into these rival con al contentions, at this stage, lest it m thing st it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has be has been brought forward to indicate ioner dicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding fro ing from the process of justice or in ution or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. The petitioner is a lady aged abo o of ed about 31 years (as per memo of parties appen appended with the petition), hence o be hence, bail petition ought to be considered in ed in view of proviso to Section 48 nt to ion 480(2) BNSS. It is pertinent to mention herein herein that the proviso to Section 480 ria on 480 BNSS, 2023, is pari materia MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39206- -2025 5 5 with proviso oviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. d be 1973. In this regard, it would be apposite to ref to refer herein to a judgment passed b 24 in ssed by this Court on 14.03.2024 in CRM-M-1150 11503-2024 titled as ‘Ravinder Kaur aling Kaur Vs. State of Punjab’ (dealing with proviso to viso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.), relevant levant thereof reads as under: “It would be apposite to refer herein Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2022(1 51. Proviso to Section 437 of th accused is under the age of sixteen yea is something which is required to be has to satisfy itself that the accused p pertaining to women, the court is exp have already taken note of the fac cognizable offenses are poor and illi yo young they have children to take care when the children are to live in priso more than 1000 children are living in This is an aspect that the courts are e not only involve the interest of the acc not expected to get exposed to the priso being inherited not only with poverty b xxxx 58. Section 437 of the Code empow the offenses while considering an appli an offense punishable either with li exclusively by the Court of Sessions. T conditionally release on bail an accuse or is a woman or is sick or infirm, welfare legislation, though introduce applied while considering release on or the High Court, as the case may be. Code is exercised against an order re against an offence exclusively decide cannot be a divided application of prov the power under Section 439. While d purposive interpretation giving the be p intendment is the role required to be p to state that this proviso has to be co the application depends upon the f therein. What is required is the consi proviso among other factors.” p xxxx erein to the dicta of a judgment of the the ral of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central 22(10) SCC 51’ , which held as under: of the Code mandates that when the the years, sick or infirm or being a woman, an, urt be taken note of. Obviously, the court ase sed person is sick or infirm. In a case expected to show some sensitivity. We We fact that many women who commit mit ing illiterate. In many cases, upon being care of, and there are many instances ces prisons. The statistics would show that hat rs. ng in prisons along with their mothers. uld are expected to take note of as it would accused, but also the children who are are eir prisons. There is a grave danger of their rty but with crime as well. xxx mpowers the Magistrate to deal with all all application for bail with the exception of of ble th life imprisonment or death triable s. The first proviso facilitates a court to t to ccused if he is under the age of 16 years ars a rm, as discussed earlier. This being a be duced by way of a proviso, has to be on bail either by the Court of Sessions ons be. The power under Section 439 of the the nd er rejecting an application for bail and cided by the Court of Sessions. There ere proviso to Section 437, while exercising ing , a ile dealing with a welfare legislation, a the e benefit to the needy person being the be played by the court. We do not wish ish e considered favourably in all cases as as he facts and circumstances contained ed his onsideration per se by the court of this 6.2. As per custody certificate dated rned dated 29.07.2025 filed by learned State counsel, unsel, the petitioner has already suffe eriod y suffered incarceration for a period of about 8 m t 8 months and 15 days. As per the , the er the said custody certificate, the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39206- -2025 6 6 petitioner is st r is stated to be involved in multiple , the ltiple other FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of nts of a person are required to be acco ing a be accounted for while considering a regular bail p bail petition preferred by him. Howe be a However, this factum cannot be a ground suffici sufficient by itself, to decline the con o the he concession of regular bail to the petitioner in th r in the FIR in question when a case i gular se is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FI the FIR in question by ratiocinating u es of ating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. R FIR. Reliance in this regard can be pl f the be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. A .P. hd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2 her, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 nt of 86; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble C ’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (2) e of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Crimina minal) 477 & judgments of this Cou 22 is Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhil khilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , and yana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Stat State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (C R (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on her ds to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfactio sfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/D r, in CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to co to conditions that may be imposed y posed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the ate, the petitioner shall remain bound b ound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent herself on any date before the trial. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-39206- -2025 (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi h the deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change her ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in give her cellphone number to the the r/SHO of concerned Police Station ation prior her cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. y the not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may b ay be imposed by concerned CJM ected CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment