CRM-M- IN 109 Joginder K Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 08.08.2024 Code, at P has filed th 2. noticed her Station Jod complaint p extending alleges tha able to sen -53968-2024 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA der Kaur Sandhu Versus of Punjab and another AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advoca Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse .2024, registered against her under S at Police Station Dugri, District Po iled the present petition for grant of an Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Santokh Singh, Assistant Sub Jodhewal, Ludhiana, set the crim int pointing therein that petitioner ing false promises of sending his that petitioner assured him that sh send his son abroad (Portugal) on 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-53968-2024 Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondents. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. dvocate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. accused in case FIR No. 100 date nder Sections 406, 420 of Indian Pen rict Police Commissionerate, Ludhian t of anticipatory bail. ging from the documents on record b Sub Inspector, then posted in Polic criminal law in motion by filing ner has committed a fraud on him b his (c) son abroad. Complaina t she is well connected and would b l) on work permit. She also assure .2026 ents. 0 dated n Penal udhiana, cord be Police ling a im by ainant uld be sured GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- that she is Dubai, wh abroad. Th over to pe complainan (c) send hi nor the mo enquired in amount wa Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. given to Av expenses. Rs.9,00,000 allegations registered Dugri, Dist pre-arrest b -53968-2024 -2 e is well known to a person, named , who would also play a construc . The entire deal was struck at Rs.1 o petitioner on various occasions inant. He further pointed out that d his son to Dubai. But thereafter e money was returned. On receipt ed into by the police officials dur t was paid by the complainant as per Payment Made Account No 1,00,000/- 123810500 2,00,000/- 100116328 2,00,000/- 123810500 2,00,000/- 100116328 1,05,000/- 123810500 95,000/- 100116328 He also alleged that Rs.1,00 Avtar Singh, at the asking of pet es. As per complainant, in all Rs.1 0,000/- was deposited in the acco tions, a formal case vide FIR N red under Sections 406, 420 of Indi District Police Commissionerate, Lu Apprehending his arrest, peti rrest bail. The same came to be d 2- amed Avtar Singh, who is residing tructive role in sending his (c) so Rs.12 lakhs. Details of money hande ions have also been highlighted b that relying upon her assurances, h fter boy was neither sent to Portug eipt of the complaint, the matter wa during which it was found that th s per the details given below:- nt No. Date 050018240 23.07.2022 632819 24.08.2022 050018240 07.09.2022 632819 21.03.2023 050018240 25.05.2023 632819 05.06.2023 1,00,000/- in the shape of Euro wa f petitioner, as boarding and lodgin Rs.12 lakhs were given, out of whic account. Finding substance in th R No. 100 dated 08.08.2024, wa Indian Penal Code, at Police Statio e, Ludhiana. t, petitioner moved an application fo o be dismissed by learned Addition ing in c) son anded ted by es, he rtugal r was at the o was dging which in the was tation tion for ditional GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Sessions Ju same, the p 3. been falsely have been involved in acquitted o look out o frivolous co Santokh Si to regularly woman, tak police offic the name of pressure ex was paid by after deduc verdicts fro later he cam to petitione at said poin 2013, when return the s weak finan -53968-2024 -3 ions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order date , the present petition has been filed for Learned counsel for the petit falsely implicated in the present case been nursing a grudge against her lved in several cases (12 in number), i itted or proceedings have been quash out of an opportunity to level scor lous complaint leveling baseless allega It is further the submission of okh Singh had come in contact with p gularly appear in various Courts at L an, taking advantage of her unenviabl officials kept on extorting money fr e of helping her/in getting her acqu It is also the submission of le ure exerted by complainant and other paid by petitioner, who was promised deducting the expenses that were icts from the Court, but he failed to ab came out with a different version th titioner, as she had promised to send h point in time, he assured that he wo when she was in need of money, s n the said amount. But, he showed h financial position. Later, however, c 3- er dated 05.10.2024. Aggrieved of th led for grant of bail. e petitioner submits that petitioner ha t case. Local police officials of the are st her since 2000. She was false ber), in most of which she either stand quashed. Police officials were on th l scores with her and, thus, moved allegations. ion of learned counsel that complaina with petitioner in 2005, when she use s at Ludhiana. Being a helpless sing nviable position, complainant and oth ney from her for more than 20 years r acquitted in multiple criminal cases. n of learned counsel that on account o other local police officials, Rs.40 lakh mised that the money would be returne were incurred in getting favourab d to abide by the said promise. Rathe sion that Rs.12.50 lakhs had been give send his (c) son abroad.Worst still, eve he would make remaining payment. I ney, she requested the complainant wed his helplessness, on account of h ever, certain amounts through cheque d of the ner has the area falsely r stands on the oved a plainant he used s single nd other years in cases. count of 40 lakhs returned ourable Rather, ven ill, even ment. In inant to t of his cheques GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- were transf with petitio by petitione rather the extorted fro he would g counsel sub dated 08.08 with the re date. It is interim bai concession false story totally deni 4. State couns clever and she has rem and was occasion, s and having and that sh For the said complainan of petition -53968-2024 -4 transferred in her account. The state petition as Annexure P-5 has also been etitioner is that money credited in her r the petitioner has failed to return ted from her by misleading her and ould get various cases decided in her f sel submits that after registration of 08.08.2024, a representation was als the request to look into the matter bu It is also the submission of learned im bail on 19.11.2024/19.8.2025, petit ession and joined the investigation, bu story before the Court. Allegations ly denied. Prayer for allowing the petit Per contra, while opposing the counsel during his brief submission r and cunning woman, whose past ante as remained involved in various crim was thus known to complainant, a sion, she assured that on account of h aving spent sufficient number of yea that she would be able to send his (c) he said purpose, the deal was struck a lainant also pointed out the details of etitioner on this count. Only after 4- e statement of account appended alon o been referred to. Thus, the plea take in her account was actually due to he eturn the entire amount which he ha and by giving her false assurance th n her favour. Towards the end, learne on of the present FIR bearing No. 10 as also made to the then DGP, Punja tter but the same remains undecided ti learned counsel that since the grant o 5, petitioner has never misused the sa ion, but the police officials presented ations levelled in the status report a e petition has been made. ing the request for grant of bail, learne ission contends that petitioner is a ver ast antecedents are far from satisfactor criminal cases beginning from 200 , a police official. On one suc nt of her having studied in foreign lan of years abroad, is very well connecte his (c) son to Portugal on work permi truck at Rs.12 lakhs. In the complain ails of money transferred to the accou after the allegations levelled in th d along ea taken e to her, he had nce that learned No. 100 Punjab, ided till grant of the said nted a port are learned s a very factory; 2000 ne such ign land nnected permit. mplaint, account in the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complaint FIR were re the petition appears to b documents does not de how, when neither has through ban strange to c lakhs and initiate any simple hom from 2000, Further, if explanation lodging the Towards story has b position in investigatio complainan Dismissal o -53968-2024 -5 laint were verified, the criminal pro were registered. Learned State counsel next co etitioner that complainant had borrow ars to be attractive at the first blush bu ments and other connecting circumsta not deserve to be taken note of. It has when and where exactly Rs.40 lakhs w er has it been specified as to whether t gh bank transactions etc. Continuing further, learned Sta ge to common sense that if complaina and had refused to return the entire te any proceedings against him. It is home maker. She has been facin 2000, most of which are under Sec er, if the police officials were nursing nation forthcoming as to why they ing the present FIR in 2024 (the last ards the end, learned State counsel co has been weaved by petitioner to w ion in which she is presently placed an tigation, but she refused to cooperate lainant. Thus, custodial interrog issal of the petition has been prayed fo 5- al proceedings in the shape of prese ext contends that the story put forth b borrowed Rs.40 lakhs from her thoug ush but when appreciated in the light o umstances brought on record, the sam It has not been mentioned by her as lakhs were given by her to complainan ether the aforesaid amount was in cas ned State counsel contends that it seem plainant who had allegedly taken Rs.4 entire amount, why petitioner did n . It is not that petitioner is an illitera facing criminal cases beginning rig er Section 420 of Indian Penal Cod ursing a grudge against her, there is n waited for almost 10 years befo e last of FIR was registered in 2013 nsel contends that seemingly attractiv er to wriggle out of the embarrass ced and that even though she joined th ate or to recover the amount due terrogation of petitioner is neede ayed for. present forth by though light of he same er as to lainant, in cash, it seems n Rs.40 did not illiterate right l Code. re is no s before 2013). ttractive rrassing ined the t due to needed. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5. documents 6. the counse Supreme C application 7. Directorate 8. “Ms. X Vs. 279) held a -53968-2024 -6 Heard learned counsel for th ments on record. Before expressing any opinio ounsels, it would be appropriate to r eme Court, wherein the factors to be k cation for grant of anticipatory bail, ha Hon’ble the Supreme Cou orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC “67. Ordinarily, arrest is investigation to secure not onl several other purposes. Power is an extraordinary power an sparingly. The privilege of the only in exceptional cases. T upon the court has to be prope mind as to the nature and gra of applicant fleeing justice an it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to some ex investigation of an offence circumspect while exercisin anticipatory bail. Anticipator matter of rule and it has to convinced that exceptional cir extraordinary remedy.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court Vs. The State of Maharashtra and eld as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a that ought to govern grant of a 6- for the parties and have perused th opinion on submissions raised by bo te to refer to the judgment of Hon’b o be kept in mind while dealing with a ail, have been discussed. Court in “P. Chidambaram v 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: is a part of procedure of th t only the presence of the accused b ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 r and the same has to be exercise f the pre-arrest bail should be grante s. The judicial discretion conferre roperly exercised after application gravity of the accusation; possibili e and other factors to decide wheth ant of anticipatory bail. Grant e extent interferes in the sphere nce and hence, the court must b cising such power for grant atory bail is not to be granted as be granted only when the court l circumstances exist to resort to th urt while deciding the case titled a and another” (2023 SCC Online S e a quick look at the consideration t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin sed the by both Hon’ble with an m vs. der:- f the ed but 1973 rcised ranted ferred tion of ibility hether nt of ere of st be nt of as a ourt is to that led as ne SC ations a line GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -53968-2024 -7 of decisions of this court tha while deciding an application from undertaking a detailed a being on the prima facie issue reasonable grounds that woul committed the offence or thos seriousness of the offence. The deep into the analysis of the e reasons, namely, to prevent an the prosecution or the defence and to keep all aspects of t concluded. 12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch Bench of this Court had highli borne in mind while con application and had stated tha "9. We are of the opinion tha unsustainable. It is trite that interfere with an order passe rejecting bail to the accused. upon the High Court to exe cautiously and strictly in com laid down in a plethora of dec It is well settled that, among o be borne in mind while conside (i) whether there is any prim believe that the accused had co (ii) nature and gravity of the a (iii)severity of the punishment (iv)danger of the accused abs bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea accused; 7- that have underscored the fact th tion for bail, the court ought to refra ed analysis of the evidence, the focu ssues including consideration of som would go to show if the accused ha those facts that would reflect on th . The self-imposed restraint on delvin the evidence at that stage is for val nt any prejudice to the case set up b ence likely to be taken by the accuse of the matter open till the trial r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ighlighted the factors that ought to b considering the anticipatory ba that :- n that the impugned order is clear that this Court does not, normall assed by the High Court granting o sed. However, it is equally incumbe exercise its discretion judiciousl compliance with the basic principl f decisions of this Court on the poin ng other circumstances, the factors nsidering an application for bail are prima facie or reasonable ground ad committed the offence; he accusation; ent in the event of conviction; absconding or fleeing, if released o means, position and standing of th ct that efrain focus f some d has on the elving valid up by cused rial is asanta ivision t to be bail learly mally, ing or mbent iously, ciples point. tors to l are: und to sed on of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. The State Supreme C ought not t 10. petitioner i Agreeing w is of the o exceptional ordinary re 11. 13.02.2026 gbs -53968-2024 -8 (vi) likelihood of the offence be (vii) reasonable apprehension and (viii) danger, of course, of just bail.” In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ tate of Maharashtra and another, eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba not to be granted in a routine manne Factual backdrop of the cas ioner in the entire incident has been h eing with the submissions advanced b the opinion that petitioner has not b ptional depravity or hardship in his ary relief of grant of pre-arrest bail. The petition being devoid of a .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 8- ce being repeated; sion of the witnesses being influence justice being thwarted by grant of etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b ry bail is an exceptional remedy an nner.” he case and the role played by th een highlighted in para 2 of this orde ced by learned State counsel, the Cou s not been able to make out a case o in his favour entitling her this ext id of any merit is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No enced; of av vs. Hon’ble y and by the is order. Court case of is extra NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document