Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26410 (DEL)

SURJEET SINGH THIND v. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI

BAIL APPLN./2934/2025 · 2025-08-05

Sanjeev Narula

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2934/2025, CRL.M.A. 22766/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22767/2025 SURJEET SINGH THIND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Mr. Agnish Aditya, Mr. Kabir Brar, Advocates versus THE STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Umesh Yadav, PS IGI Airport CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 05.08.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeking pre-arrest bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 84/2025 dated 29th January, 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 19674 at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi. 2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “BNS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:11 Immigration Officer, alleging that two Indian nationals, Randeep and Jobanpreet Singh, had been deported from Spain as they were found travelling on forged Canadian visas. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that these fake visas had been arranged by agents operating from Punjab. 3. During the interrogation of co-accused Jobanpreet Singh, he disclosed that one Surjeet Singh Thind (the Applicant) had arranged the aforementioned forged Canadian visa in exchange for a consideration of INR 40,00,000/-, out of which INR 15,00,000/- had already been paid. He further disclosed that he was in regular contact with the Applicant and that both were coordinating the arrangements. 4. Counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is no direct evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged offence. It is further argued that the Applicant has been fully cooperating with the investigation and was granted interim protection by the Sessions Court. It is also pointed out that the co- accused, Jobanpreet Singh, has already been released on bail. Since the Applicant has been cooperating with the investigation, there is no justification for custodial interrogation or denial of bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, submits that although the Applicant has joined the investigation, he has been entirely uncooperative. He has remained evasive and has not responded to the questions put to him. It is further alleged that the Applicant deleted WhatsApp communications exchanged between him and the co-accused. Electronic evidence also reveals that emails were exchanged between the 4 “Passports Act” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:11 Applicant and the co-accused, in which copies of the forged Canadian visa were shared. The case diary, prima facie, contains sufficient material to implicate the Applicant. 6. Considering the gravity of the offence, which involves the fabrication of visas to facilitate illegal travel using forged documents, the Court is of the opinion that this case carries serious implications. The allegations are not merely of inducement but of active facilitation by the Applicant, who is alleged to be an agent in the illegal immigration network. In such circumstances, the State’s request for custodial interrogation, particularly for identifying the larger syndicate involved, is prima facie justified. Moreover, as submitted by the APP, recovery of the mobile phone and other digital evidence can only be effectively carried out through custodial interrogation. 7. In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find any grounds to grant bail. 8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed along with pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2025/ab This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:11