CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367---- 132 132 132 132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pardeep Singh State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 22.08.2024, registered for the off 120-B of the IPC, 1860 2. complainant, Navdeep Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur, induced the complainant by a would arrange visas for the complainant, his son and his daughter for travel to Cyprus. On this representation, a deal was finalized for a total consideration of ₹9,00,000/-, out of which the complainant allegedly paid a sum of comprising ₹ transactions. It is further alleged that the visas purportedly arranged by the accused ----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367----2026 2026 2026 2026 Pardeep Singh versus Punjab Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: July 15 July 15 July 15 July 15, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 15 July 15 July 15 July 15, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section grant of regular bail to the petitioner, registered for the offences punishable under Section the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Joga, District Mansa The gravamen of the allegations complainant, namely, Raj Singh Pardeep Singh Navdeep Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur, induced the complainant by a would arrange visas for the complainant, his son and his daughter for travel to Cyprus. On this representation, a deal was finalized for a total consideration of , out of which the complainant allegedly paid a sum of ₹2,52,000/- in cash and the remaining amount through transactions. It is further alleged that the visas purportedly arranged by the accused 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in case bearing FIR No.78 dated ences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, Joga, District Mansa. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR in question is that the Raj Singh Pardeep Singh (petitioner herein) and his sister, Navdeep Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur, induced the complainant by assuring that they would arrange visas for the complainant, his son and his daughter for travel to Cyprus. On this representation, a deal was finalized for a total consideration of , out of which the complainant allegedly paid a sum of ₹4,52,000/-, in cash and the remaining amount through online transactions. It is further alleged that the visas purportedly arranged by the accused 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent of the BNSS, 2023 dated 420, 468, 471, the and his sister, ssuring that they would arrange visas for the complainant, his son and his daughter for travel to Cyprus. On this representation, a deal was finalized for a total consideration of , online transactions. It is further alleged that the visas purportedly arranged by the accused MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367----2026 2026 2026 2026 were subsequently found to be forged and fabricated, thereby cheating the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated into the FIR in question on account of monetary dispute between the sister of the petitioner and wife of the complainant. Learned counsel has urged that, in any case, investigation is complete and culmination of trial will take long. Learned counsel has iterated that trial emanating from the FIR in question is a magisterial one. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 04.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand: 5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367----2026 2026 2026 2026 criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.” 5.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under: “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, court, court, court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” 5.3 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367----2026 2026 2026 2026 of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” 6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 15.06.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and it is conceded case that the charges are yet not framed. It is not in dispute that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 04.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 18 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----29367 29367 29367 29367----2026 2026 2026 2026 furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 15 July 15 July 15 July 15, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment