SANDEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case Details
CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) -1- 110+214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.04.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the pe(cid:25)(cid:25)oner. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Saurav Bha(cid:25)a, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) CRM-13284-2025 Allowed as prayed for. Main case
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 43 03.05.2024 Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar (Punjab) 420 IPC and Sec(cid:25)on 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regula(cid:25)on) Act, 2014 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Per paragraph 9 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:17) (cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:24) (cid:24)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:17)(cid:31)(cid:11) (cid:4)!(cid:2)(cid:11)"(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:4)#(cid:9)(cid:13)$(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:17)%(cid:4) &(cid:18)(cid:12)’(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:4)((cid:11)(cid:17)$(cid:11)’(cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:1))(cid:11))(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4) ()(cid:11)$(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:17)$)(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:11)$(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:3) 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: Renu Bala 2025.04.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "That it is respec(cid:13)ully submi(cid:19)ed that the brief facts of the present case are that instant case/FIR No.43/2024 has been registered against the present pe##oner along with his co-accused namely Pardeep Singh CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) -2- son of Avtar Singh, resident of 2091, Street No.34, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana and Gurmeet Singh son of Narinder Singh, resident of 70,
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. Renu Bala 2025.04.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) -4- 9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 12. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum Renu Bala 2025.04.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) -5- deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 16. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 19. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
near Gurudwara Shri Sukhmani Sahib, Phase- 2, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana on the complaint No. 278-Peshi dated 11.03.2024 moved by the complainant- Sandeep Singh son of Tara Singh, resident of village Palli Uchi, PS Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar to the Senior Superintendent of Police, SBS Nagar. The complainant in his aforemen#oned complaint has alleged that he (complainant) met with the present pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar and his accomplice namely Pardeep Singh at village Happowal, where the complainant as well as the said accused used to come at Gurudwara Sahib to pay obeisance. The complainant further alleged that the said accused told the complainant that they would provide him 2 years work permit of Canada and they would charge Rs. 19/20 Lakh for the same. The complainant further alleged that he came into the words of the said accused and on their demand, the complainant transferred Rs. 1,50,000/- into the bank account of one Gurmit Singh and also handed over his passport to pe##oner and his co-accused. The complainant further alleged that therea=er, again on the demand of the pe##oner and his co-accused, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 1,30,000/- into the bank account of the present pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar on 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 respec#vely. The complainant further alleged that again the complainant transferred Rs. 90,000/- into the bank account of the pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar. The complainant further alleged that therea=er, the pe##oner and his co-accused demanded remaining amount from the complainant and on their demand, the complainant transferred Rs. 3,00,000/- as on 25.08.2023, Rs. 1,80,000/- on 08.09.2023 and again Rs. 1,00,000/- on 08.09.2023 into the bank account of the pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar. The complainant further alleged that he had also transferred a sum of Rs. 5,000/- into the bank account of the pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar through Paytm App. The complainant further alleged that therea=er, the pe##oner- Sandeep Kumar and his co- accused told the complainant that the visa of the complainant has already been issued and the said accused also showed photo of the visa and the said accused took an amount of Rs. 8,65,000/- from the complainant in cash for hotel expenses, air #cket and currency exchange. The complainant further alleged that later on Renu Bala 2025.04.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60252-2024 (O&M) -3- he came to know that the visa shown by the pe##oner and his co- accused was fake and the pe##oner and his co-accused stopped picking up the calls of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the pe##oner and his co-accused duped the complainant to the tune of Rs. 19,70,000/- on the pretext of sending him abroad i.e. Canada The complainant further requested to take legal ac#on against the said accused." 4. Counsel for the pe(cid:25)(cid:25)oner submits that en(cid:25)re amount was transferred in the account of Gurmeet Singh and pe(cid:25)(cid:25)oner is not at all involved but he is vic(cid:25)m himself. He has further referred to Annexure P-1, according to which the pe(cid:25)(cid:25)oner was one of the complainant's in a complaint made against various people including Gurmeet Singh and complainant Sandeep Singh is also signatory to that complaint. Reference has been made, pe(cid:25)(cid:25)oner name surfaces at Serial No. 3 and name of the complainant is at Serial No.7 in the complaint. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel as well as the complainant opposes bail petition. It would be appropriate to refer following portion of reply which reads as under:- "There are specific and well founded allega#ons against the present pe##oner as the complainant had paid Rs.19,70,000/- to present pe##on and his co-accused, out of which, Rs.9,50,000/- was directly transferred into the bank account of the present pe##oner and Rs.8,65,000/- was received by the pe##oner and his co-accused in case and remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred into the bank account of accused-Gurmeet Singh by the complainant. The pe##oner is connivance with his co-accused cheated the complainant on the pretext of providing him work permit but subsequently the accused including pe##oner failed to do the needful and also refused to return money to complainant." REASONING: 7. Perusal of the statement Annexure P-4 reflects that petitioner transferred amount to Gurmeet Singh, and petitioner alongwith complainant also made complaint Annexure P-1 against said Gurmeet Singh, which shows that he is also victim at this stage and further investigation could find out truth. 8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
disposed of. 03.04.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No ( ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Renu Bala 2025.04.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document