IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 102 GAGAN VERMA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conference) Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) CRM-12223-2025 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Main case The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 07.10.2024 registered under Sections 420 District Mansa. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant induced her to part with a sum of Rs.23,70,000/ to United Kindgom (U.K.). Some of this money was transferred by way of bank transaction to return the amount of money so taken and therefore, caused wrongful loss her with intention to cheat her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: 28.03.2025 GAGAN VERMA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conference). Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) 2025 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 07.10.2024 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant-Sarbjeet Kaur on the allegations that the petitioner had induced her to part with a sum of Rs.23,70,000/ to United Kindgom (U.K.). Some of this money was transferred by way of bank transactions. The petitioner, however, failed to either send her abroad or to return the amount of money so taken and therefore, caused wrongful loss her with intention to cheat her, since the very beginning. After registration of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.16218 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 07.10.2024 and 406 of IPC, at Police Station City Budhlada, The aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged Sarbjeet Kaur on the allegations that the petitioner had induced her to part with a sum of Rs.23,70,000/- on the pretext of sending her to United Kindgom (U.K.). Some of this money was transferred by way of . The petitioner, however, failed to either send her abroad or to return the amount of money so taken and therefore, caused wrongful loss to since the very beginning. After registration of Bharatiya by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 07.10.2024 and 406 of IPC, at Police Station City Budhlada, The aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged Sarbjeet Kaur on the allegations that the petitioner had on the pretext of sending her to United Kindgom (U.K.). Some of this money was transferred by way of . The petitioner, however, failed to either send her abroad or to since the very beginning. After registration of Jyoti 2025.04.03 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application before the Court of learned Sessions Jud 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the amount of money which was transferred by the complainant into his bank account, had fur transferred to the account of Victoria Ielts and Immigration Consultancy which had undertaken to facilitate the issuance of visa of the complainant to the U.K. The aforesaid company had subsequently declined to pursue the visa permit file of the complaint or to return her money. It was above named consultancy company which had misguided the complainant and the petitioner had no role to play in it. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recov urged that he deserves to be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is submit specific allegations in the FIR against the present petitioner since it was he, who had allured the complainant to part with huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her abroad on work permit visa. The petitioner had neither returned the money nor got issued visa in favour of the complainant. For conducting through investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. No extra ordinary and exceptional circumstance to grant him the CRM-M No.16218 of 2025 (O&M) the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mansa vide order dated 25.11.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the amount of money which was transferred by the complainant into his bank account, had fur transferred to the account of Victoria Ielts and Immigration Consultancy which had undertaken to facilitate the issuance of visa of the complainant to the U.K. The aforesaid company had subsequently declined to pursue the visa permit complaint or to return her money. It was above named consultancy company which had misguided the complainant and the petitioner had no role to play in it. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be given benefit of anticipatory bail. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is submit specific allegations in the FIR against the present petitioner since it was he, who had allured the complainant to part with huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her abroad on work permit visa. The petitioner had neither returned the money nor got issued visa in favour of the complainant. For conducting through investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. No extra ordinary and exceptional circumstance to grant him the (O&M) -2- the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application before the ge, Mansa vide order dated 25.11.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the amount of money which was transferred by the complainant into his bank account, had further been transferred to the account of Victoria Ielts and Immigration Consultancy which had undertaken to facilitate the issuance of visa of the complainant to the U.K. The aforesaid company had subsequently declined to pursue the visa permit complaint or to return her money. It was above named consultancy company which had misguided the complainant and the petitioner had no role to play in it. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is ery is to be effected from him. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be given benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the present petitioner since it was he, who had allured the complainant to part with huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her abroad on work permit visa. The petitioner had neither returned the money nor got issued visa in favour of the complainant. For conducting through investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. No extra ordinary and exceptional circumstance to grant him the the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application before the It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the amount of money which ther been transferred to the account of Victoria Ielts and Immigration Consultancy which had undertaken to facilitate the issuance of visa of the complainant to the U.K. The aforesaid company had subsequently declined to pursue the visa permit complaint or to return her money. It was above named consultancy company which had misguided the complainant and the petitioner had no role to play in it. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is ery is to be effected from him. Therefore, it is Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the ted by her that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the present petitioner since it was he, who had allured the complainant to part with huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her abroad on work permit visa. The petitioner had neither returned the money nor got issued visa in favour of the complainant. For conducting through investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. No extra ordinary and exceptional circumstance to grant him the Jyoti 2025.04.03 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM concession of pre present petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. Rival submissions have been heard by this Court. 7. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner that he had allured the complainant pretext of sending her abroad and then by assuring that the visa will be issued within 6 months, she was made to pay another amount of Rs.19,45,000/ petitioner has claimed that the entire amount rece transferred to account of some other consultancy firm, however, no material has been produced on record to show so. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. The case is at its nascent stage. conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possib to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The custodial interrogation of a suspected p oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be g matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the CRM-M No.16218 of 2025 (O&M) concession of pre-arrest bail has been made out. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Rival submissions have been heard by this Court. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner that he had allured the complainant to initially part with sum of Rs.4,25,000/ pretext of sending her abroad and then by assuring that the visa will be issued within 6 months, she was made to pay another amount of Rs.19,45,000/ petitioner has claimed that the entire amount rece transferred to account of some other consultancy firm, however, no material has been produced on record to show so. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. The case is at its nascent stage. ting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant’s fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be g matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the (O&M) -3- has been made out. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Rival submissions have been heard by this Court. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner that he to initially part with sum of Rs.4,25,000/- on the pretext of sending her abroad and then by assuring that the visa will be issued within 6 months, she was made to pay another amount of Rs.19,45,000/-. The petitioner has claimed that the entire amount received by him had been transferred to account of some other consultancy firm, however, no material has been produced on record to show so. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. The case is at its nascent stage. For ting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of ility of applicant’s fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The erson is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the has been made out. Therefore, it is urged that the There are specific allegations against the present petitioner that he on the pretext of sending her abroad and then by assuring that the visa will be issued . The ived by him had been transferred to account of some other consultancy firm, however, no material has been produced on record to show so. The allegations against the petitioner For ting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of ility of applicant’s fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The erson is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising ranted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the Jyoti 2025.04.03 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM powers for gra view the gravity thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and also of tampering with the evidence, no ground has been made o of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expres 29.03.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.16218 of 2025 (O&M) powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Keeping in view the gravity thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and also of tampering with the evidence, no ground has been made out for allowing the petition. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No (O&M) -4- nt of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Keeping in view the gravity thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and also of tampering with the ut for allowing the petition. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall sion of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No nt of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Keeping in view the gravity thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and also of tampering with the ut for allowing the petition. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.04.03 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document