Punjab & Anr. v. Date

Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner for grant of pre in case bearing FIR arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0067 dated registered for the offences punishable under dated 25.05.2026, registered for the offences punishable under registered for the offences punishable under 316 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Singh Sections 316 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Singh 316 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Singh 316 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar. Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Madhubala alleged that the Madhubala alleged that the petitioner , who is a relative of the petitioner, who is a relative of the complainant’ ’s friend, came with her contact and t her contact and informed the complainant that her son, Hardeep Singh, and daughter , Hardeep Singh, and daughter-in law, Dimpal, were residing in in-law, Dimpal, were residing in s sponsorship to Canada Canada and that she could arrange the complainant’s sponsorship to Canada Canada and that she could arrange the complainant Canada and that she could arrange the complainant 2026 39089----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39089 20262026 39089 39089 2222 for a consideration of `8,00,000/-. Believing the said representation, the complainant handed over her original passport, school certificate, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, bank statements, and passport-size photographs to the petitioner. It is further alleged that, on different dates during the year 2025, the petitioner received a total sum of `8,00,000/- from the complainant through various transactions. However, she neither arranged for the complainant to be sent to Canada nor refunded the amount received from her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner since inception and, thus, ingredients of Section 318(4) of the BNS are not attracted in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that resolution dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Behdali, does not contain any allegation regarding any promise of arraigning Canadian sponsorship, sending complainant abroad or any dishonest inducement. It has been asserted that it is clear from the banking transactions of the petitioner that she had received amount of Rs.2,70,000/- through banking channels and out of which, she has returned Rs.97,010/- through the same account to the complainant. It has further been argued that the departmental inquiry shows that the petitioner had handed over two signed blank cheques and one cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in fact, it is a civil/ monetary dispute between the parties, which has been given a criminal colour. The 2026 39089----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39089 20262026 39089 39089 3333 prosecution case rests on documentary evidence and the same has already been collected by the investigating agency. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry and cooperated therein, thus, there is no apprehension that the petitioner would abscond or obstruct the investigation.

3.1. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a lady aged 51 years having deep roots in the society and has already cooperated in the departmental inquiry.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending her behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has asserted that the petitioner has dishonestly cheated the complainant tune of Rs.8,00,000/- on the pretext of sending her abroad, but neither the complainant was sent abroad nor was her money returned by the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, the offence committed by the petitioner caused substantial financial and emotional distress the victim. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner maybe necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy, identify co- accused and recover the ill-gotten money. Given the severity of the offence, 2026 39089----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39089 20262026 39089 39089 4444 there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. From the perusal of the prosecution case, it is borne out that the petitioner, taking advantage of her acquaintance with the complainant through a common friend, induced the complainant to believe that she could arrange her sponsorship to Canada through her son and daughter-in-law, who were residing there, in lieu of a consideration of `8,00,000/-. Acting upon such representation, the complainant not only paid the said amount to the petitioner through various transactions but also entrusted her original passport, educational certificates, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, bank statements, and passport-size photographs to her. It is alleged that, despite receiving the entire amount and the requisite documents, the petitioner neither arranged the complainant’s sponsorship to Canada nor refunded the amount received from her. The allegations, prima facie, disclose a deliberate act of cheating and dishonest inducement involving a substantial amount of money.

6.1. Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such 2026 39089----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39089 20262026 39089 39089 5555 organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.

6.2. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant of a substantial amount under the false pretext of facilitating her legal migration to abroad, which caused severe financial and emotional distress.

It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment