CRM-M-15844-2025 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 314 CRM-M-15844-2025 Date of decision: 11th July, 2025 Sukhpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 03 dated 11.01.2020 registered under Sections 420, 464, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a compliant lodged by the complainant Sahib Singh, on the allegations that he had induced him to part with a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the pretext of getting a multiple entry visa for Canada, issued against him. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given in advance. The petitioner had given a fake visa to him. Since the complainant was not aware about this fact, he paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-, after receipt of this visa. However, the same was found to be fake on verification. By alleging that he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. Initially, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, which proved that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- had taken by the petitioner from the complainant. He had issued Parveen Sharma 2025.07.15 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15844-2025 2- a fake visa. On insistence of the complainant, the passport of the victim was returned but not the money taken by the petitioner. The aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner avoided his arrest. A look out circular was issued against him and he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 18.11.2021. Challan was presented. The petitioner was apprehended on 11.01.2025 at Chennai International Airport and was brought to Faridkot. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner is facing trial for the commission of aforementioned offences. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, on the date of registration of FIR, he was not in India, as he had gone to Philippians on 27.05.2019. He had come to India in December, 2019 and then, on 15.01.2025. He is in custody since 15.01.2025. Investigation stands concluded. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who played deception upon the complainant and after receiving an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- by alluring him on the pretext of sending him to Canada on multiple entry visa, he provided a fake visa to him. The malafide intention of the petitioner was evident. He has remained an absconder for a period of four years. There are chances of his fleeing, if extended benefit of bail. He is involved in two more cases of similar nature and as such, he may commit similar offences again. It is, therefore, argued Parveen Sharma 2025.07.15 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15844-2025 3- that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by alluring him that multiple entry visa for Canada would be got issued in his name by the petitioner. The said amount of money was however, usurped by the petitioner and a fake visa was given. There are specific allegations against the petitioner. He avoided his arrest and was declared a proclaimed person. He could be arrested only on 15.01.2025. There are two more case of similar nature. The apprehension expressed by the State is that he may abscond or commit similar offences at this stage. It is well settled proposition of law that gravity of the allegations is one of the prime consideration for denying/granting benefit of bail to an accused. Keeping in view the above discussed facts and the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that there is nothing on record to show that there would by any undue delay in conclusion of the trial, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 11th July, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.07.15 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document