Mahi Gill Punjab State of Punjab v. ioner
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-39226- -2025 346 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN TH ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT 2025 CRM-M-39226-2025 2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 Balraj Kaur @ aur @ Mahi Gill Punjab State of Punjab Versus ioner ….Petitioner dent …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for the for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Punja Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed und atiya ed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN ail to BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner i
Facts
ioner in case bearing FIR No.0156 date r the dated 24.06.2024, registered for the offences punish s punishable under Sections 406, 420, 1 ode, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short r short ‘IPC’) and Section 24 of the Im ation the Immigration Act, at Police 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.1275/5 Hon'ble SSP Sahib, District Mohali. To Regarding complaint against The Visa Mohali, for committing fraud and du abroad. Respected Sir, It is submitte A Amreak Singh resident of Guhla, advertisement of The Visa Land, Sec abroad I have contacted them. They ha per agreement they have taken Rs 2 p To 75/5D/PS Mataur dated 23-06-2024: To li. To SHO, PS Mataur, Mohali Subject: ct: Visa Land Travel Company, Sector 70 70 ing d duping money on pretext of sending mitted that I, Parvinder Singh son of of the the hla, Kaithal, Haryana. I saw , Sector 70 Mohali on TV. For going ing , as ey have done one agreement with me, as on Rs 25000/- as consultant Fee and on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39226- -2025 2 2 17.12.2022 they have taken 5 lac 15 th taken Rs. 3,00,000 in cash at Kisan D 13, Mani Majra, Chandigarh. After th number of times in their office but no contact number was also switched off. they have closed their office and com p persons. They have duped me for Rs. by not sending me abroad. It is re registered against the Visa Land Comp Kulvir Singh Kohra, Nishan Singh, Re and proper enquiry may be conducted from them. And case be registered fr Parvinder Singh son of Amreak Singh r Contact No. 94172. Xxxxx. Annexure 23/06/2024, copy of complaint bear 23/06/2024, To Station House Office complaint against The Visa Land Trav Floor, Sector 70 Mohali, for commit abroad. Respected Sir, It is submitted Sh. Mukhtiar Chand Sharma resident street No. 3, Rahu Road, Ludhiana. I wife Pooja Devi abroad. Regarding th The Visa Land Company on TV. I ca asked them for sending my wife to Can the Canadian Visa for my wife and fu On 01.12.2021, I transferred an amoun account of The Visa Land. Then on amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the acco 03.12.2021, again transferred an amou October 2021 I deposited an amoun deposited in the account of The Visa thousand on different dates. However Canadian visa for my wife nor refu requested that the appropriate legal a The Visa Land Kulvir Kaura, Reet Kau Simran Singh so that we can get our m yo you. Sd/- Mukesh Sharma Contact N Copy of complaint bearing No. 1277/5 SHO P.S Mataur (Mohali), Subject: R Visa Land Travel Company Sector 70 M pretext of sending abroad and further p Singh son of S. Major Singh is the r Faridkot. My wife Harpreet Kaur San Sandhu have seen the advertisement Visa Land sector 70 mohali and theref an agreement, as per the agreement w 27.08.2020 and further Rs 3,00,000/ Their shop No. 523-524 is located a Regarding this, number of times, I, h attended me. After some time their co off. After some time I came to know tha have committed fraud with other p committed fraud with me of Rs 6,00 abroad. It is requested that FIR may ave 15 thousand rupees. After this they have tor an Diesel Service, Shop No. 699, Sector ter this in the year 2023, I have visited ted ut no one attended me. After this their eir hat off. After some time I came to know that committed fraud with number of other her Rs. 8,35,000 and thus committed fraud ud be is requested to you that FIR may be ner ompany, Sector 70 Mohali, their owner , Reet Kaur Kaura and Amandeep Kaur aur cted and my duped money be refunded ed - tered against them. Thank You. Sd/- ngh resident of Guhla, Kaithal, Haryana na xure: Receipt of fee is annexed. Dated ted bearing No. 1276/5D/PS Matur dated ted ing fficer, PS Matur, Subject: Regarding Travel Company SCO 523-524, Second nd mitting fraud on the name of sending ing of itted here that I Mukesh Sharma son of ny, ident of House No. 178, Janta Colony, a. I do private job. I wanted to send my my ng this I have seen the advertisement of t of r. I I called them on the given number. I Canada. They told me that they can get get d further told me to deposit the money. ey. the mount of Rs 40000/- through bank in the an on 02.12.2021, I again transferred an account of Visa Land. Thereafter, on on amount of Rs 20,000/- and further on 28 28 ave ount of Rs 10,000/-. In total I have 60 Visa Land an amount of Rs 2 lac 60 ever, the said company neither get the the refunded my amount. Therefore, it is is of al action be taken against the owner of Kaur Kaura, Manpreet Kaur, Mahi and nd ur money back. I will be very grateful to l to 24. ct No. 9876637842, dated 23.06.2024. To 77/5D/PS Matur dated 23/06/2024," To ct: Regarding committing fraud by the e 70 Mohali by giving false assurance on on der her ran away. Respected Sir, I Ravinder he resident of Dhilwan Kalan, District rict r Sandhu and my sister Gurpreet Kaur aur ent on TV for going to abroad of The he ne erefore contacted them. They have done nt we have given them Rs 3,00,000/- on on 000/- was given on 11.08.2020 as fee. fee. ali. ed at Second Floor, Sector 70 Mohali. ne I, have visited their office but no one ir contact numbers were also switched ed that they have closed their office. They hey ave r persons and ran away. They have 6,00,000 and they have did not send nd of may be registered against the owner of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39226- -2025 3 3 The Visa Land Company Sector 70 M Singh, Reet Kaur Kaura and Ama investigated. And my money be take registered against them. Sd/- Ravinder 23.06.2024. Copy of the complaint be 27.05.2024, To, The SHO PS Mata submitted here that my name is Rupin Dhanetha, Samana, District Patiala. I with The Visa Land firm on Sep, 202 3,85,000/- but neither they have appl Visa. The firm (The Visa Land) has annexed all the receipts with the comp be registered against the company. Rupinder Kaur, 25.05.2024 Contact One complaint bearing No. 1275/5D been received from Parvinder Singh Guhla, Kaithal, Haryana for commit p pretext of sending abroad. Complain 23/06/2024 received from Mukesh S Sharma resident of House No. 178 Jan Ludhiana for committing fraud of Rs.2 sending me abroad. Complaint No 23/06/2024 from Ravinder Singh son Dhilwan Kalan, District Faridkot for the pretext of sending abroad and c Mataur date 27.05.2024 from Rupind resident of village Dhanetha, Teh committing fraud of Rs 3,85,000 on th the owner of The Visa land Immigrati Floor Sector 70 Mohali Nishan Singh s Kaura, Reet Kaura wife of Kulvir A Amandeep Kaur, Mahi and Simran Si fo found to be correct. As per the compla 120B IPC and 24 Immigration Act is f Nishan Singh of The Visa Land Immig 2nd floor Sector 70 Mohali and Kulvi Kulvir Kaura, employee Manpreet K Simran Singh. After the enquiry cond sent to Head Constable for registration The Visa Land Immigration Company 70 Mohali and Kulvir Singh Kaura, employee Manpreet Kaur, Amandeep k registering xxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX an 70 Mohali Kulvir Singh Kaura, Nishan be Amandeep Kaur and matter may be taken back from them. Case may be be der Singh Sandhu, 83605-67538, dated ted ted t bearing No. 1015/5D/PS Matur dated Mataur, Mohali, Respected Sir, It is is upinder Kaur. I am resident of village ge da la. I have applied my PR file for Canada Rs 2020. Therefore, I have given them Rs applied my file nor I have received my my has committed fraud with me. I have ave ay complaint. It is requested that FIR may ny. I will be very thank to you. Sd/- - tact No. xxxxxxx. Investigation Police: ce: 5/5D/PS Mataur dated 23.06.2024 has has of ingh son of Amreak Singh resident of mmitting fraud of Rs 8,50,000 on the the plaint no. 1276/5D PS Mataur dated ted nd sh Sharma son of Sh. Muktiar Chand ad, Janta Colony Street No. 3 Raho Road, Rs.2 lac 60 thousand on the pretext of t of t No. 1277/5 D PS Mataur Dated ted ge son of Major Singh resident of Village for committing fraud of Rs 6,00,000 on on d complaint bearing No. 1015/5D PS PS h upinder Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh for Tehsil Samana District Patiala for n the pretext of sending abroad against nst ration Company SCO No. 523-524 2nd nd gh ngh son of Gurmukh Singh, Kulvir Singh ur, lvir Kaura, employee Manpreet Kaur, n Singh. The contents of complaint are are mplaint the case under section 406, 420, 20, ner t is found to be committed by the owner migration Company SCO No. 523-524 24 ulvir Singh Kaura, Reet Kaura wife of of nd eet Kaur, Amandeep kaur, Mahi and is conducted on the complaints, the file is ation of FIR against the Nishan Singh of of any SCO No. 523-524 2nd floor Sector tor ra, ura, Reet Kaura wife of Kulvir Kaura, eep kaur, Mahi and Simran Singh. After fter ed. intimated. number case, XXX” file the the be 3.
Legal Reasoning
ts of this Court in CRM-M No.38822- v. -2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Harya aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and na, 1, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR CR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of ial is ion of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted i anted in the facts and circumstances of t es of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is sent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be r to be released on regular bail on her fur o the furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of ion of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty M ition uty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions th tions that may be imposed by the conce , the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall r shall remain bound by the following c wing conditions:- The petitioner shall not mis (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tria (iii) The petitioner shall not abse t 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. (iv) The petitioner shall not com t commit any offence while on bail. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-39226- -2025 (v) The petitioner shall deposit h the eposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO o shall not change her cell permission of the trial Court (vii) The petitioner shall not in an give her cellphone number to the the SHO of concerned Police Station and and prior r cell-phone number without prior Court/Illaqa Magistrate. t in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may b ay be imposed by concerned CJM ected CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or ove or upon showing any other sufficie inant sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liber at liberty to move cancellation of bail of of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be n of shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been d eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if a
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner er is tioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody sin dy since 07.11.2024. Learned couns t the counsel has further argued that the petitioner has r has been falsely implicated into th rned into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has fu has further submitted that, in fact, it is ishan t, it is the co-accused namely Nishan MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39226- -2025 4 4 Singh who is ho is the main accused as the petition firm etitioner is only working in the firm owned by the y the said accused. Learned counsel t the ounsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a l r is a lady aged about 31 years. Thus, r hus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed uing pposed the present petition by arguing that the allegat allegations raised are serious in nature a s not ature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the con the concession of the regular bail. Learn place . Learned State counsel seeks to place on record cust d custody certificate dated 26.07.2025 n on .2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the part h the e parties and have gone through the available recor records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 07.11.2024 whereinafter investigation w tion was carried out and challan w se on llan was presented in the case on 09.01.2025. T 25. Total 12 prosecution witnesses hav been sses have been cited, but none has been examined till d d till date. It is, thus indubitable that c take that conclusion of the trial will take its own time. time. It is not in dispute that the tr IR is the trial emanating from the FIR is magisterial one ial one. The rival contention raised at ssues sed at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall esse all essentially be ratiocinated upon du This pon during the course of trial. This Court does not es not deem it appropriate to delve deep ns, at ve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest e, lest it may prejudice the trial. Noth ught l. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indi to indicate the likelihood of the petition cess etitioner absconding from the process of justice or int e or interfering with the prosecution evid on evidence. 6.1. The petitioner is a lady aged abo o of ed about 31 years (as per memo of parties appende ppended with the petition), hence, bail ered e, bail petition ought to be considered in view of pro of proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS. It erein SS. It is pertinent to mention herein MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39226- -2025 5 5 that the provis proviso to Section 480 BNSS, 2023, i so to 023, is pari materia with proviso to Section 437 Cr 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. In this regard, it wou in to it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passe ent passed by this Court on 14.03.2024 led 3.2024 in CRM-M-11503-2024 titled as ‘Ravinder K der Kaur Vs. State of Punjab’ (deali 437 (dealing with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.), releva , relevant 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 t accused is under the age of sixteen yea is something which is required to be has to satisfy itself that the accused pertaining to women, the court is exp p 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 Section 437 of the Code empow 58. 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 p purposive interpretation giving the be 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 the erein to the dicta of a judgment of the ral of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central 22(10) SCC 51’ , which held as under: the of the Code mandates that when the an, years, sick or infirm or being a woman, be taken note of. Obviously, the court urt sed person is sick or infirm. In a case ase We expected to show some sensitivity. We fact that many women who commit mit illiterate. In many cases, upon being ing ces care of, and there are many instances hat prisons. The statistics would show that ng in prisons along with their mothers. rs. are expected to take note of as it would uld accused, but also the children who are are eir prisons. There is a grave danger of their rty but with crime as well. xxx all mpowers the Magistrate to deal with all application for bail with the exception of of th life imprisonment or death triable ble o s. The first proviso facilitates a court to ars ccused if he is under the age of 16 years rm, as discussed earlier. This being a a duced by way of a proviso, has to be be ons on bail either by the Court of Sessions be. The power under Section 439 of the the er rejecting an application for bail and nd cided by the Court of Sessions. There ere ing proviso to Section 437, while exercising ile dealing with a welfare legislation, a , a e benefit to the needy person being the the ish be played by the court. We do not wish as e considered favourably in all cases as he facts and circumstances contained ed his onsideration per se by the court of this 6.2. As per custody certificate dated 26 State 26.07.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the pe the petitioner has already suffered incar out 8 d incarceration for a period of about 8 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39226- -2025 6 6 months and 12 12 days. As per the said custody ce stated ody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved volved in multiple other FIR(s). Ind of a . Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are requ re required to be accounted for while co tition hile considering a regular bail petition preferred by hi by him. However, this factum cannot tself, annot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the c e the concession of regular bail to the p stion o the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is case is made out for grant of regular b n by ular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating u ting upon the facts/circumstances of this es of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be an be placed upon the judgment of t rt in t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Moh Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P CR f U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 58 ) 586; a Division Bench judgment High ment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 & 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of th
Decision
on, if any, shall also stands disposed off sed 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