CRM-M-57869- IN THE H (101) BAGICHA SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. R Mr. M MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 482 of Bh for grant of anticip registered under S District Gurdaspur 2. The complaint submitt Gurwinder Singh into contact with t father Dilbagh Sin his brother abroad -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Pu Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for t **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh anticipatory bail in case arising out of nder Sections 420 and 120B of IPC at daspur. The aforementioned FIR was reg ubmitted by the complainant Karanjit Singh was interested in settling abroa with the accused Manjinder Singh wh gh Singh and one Premjit Singh, who abroad and demanded a sum of Rs.4 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-57869-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.03.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ocate for the petitioner G, Punjab te for the complainant preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) out of FIR No.155 dated 27.06.2025 PC at Police Station City Gurdaspur, s registered on the basis of the ranjit Singh alleging that his brother abroad. In the year 2022, he came gh who is an immigration agent, his who assured that they could send f Rs.40 lakhs for this purpose. An M) 2026
nder ) 2025 spur, the other came t, his send An AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-57869- amount of Rs.7,7 amount of Rs.2,30 Singh. Instead o brother to Russia a another sum of R arranged and he ca of returning his m abroad. On that complainant and th he had been cheat Premjit Singh, he p 3. On re revealed that the accused Manjinde from the complain and another amou petitioner. His w accused. Apprehe of anticipatory b Additional Session 4. It is a falsely implicated allegation that he -2025 (O&M) 2 Rs.7,70,000/- was paid to the accu s.2,30,000/- was paid in cash to Dilba tead of sending his brother to USA ussia and then to Poland where he had of Rs.52,000/- to the above named d he came back to New Delhi. The acc his money, assured that he would that premise, he took another amou t and then sent his brother to Dubai ins cheated by Manjinder Singh and the h, he prayed for taking action in the m On receipt of the complaint, an inq at the present petitioner was also w njinder Singh and an amount of Rs.3 mplainant in the bank account of the r amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was depo His wife Hardeep Kaur and himself prehending his arrest, the petitioner m tory bail which had been dismisse essions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order d It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He was not named hat he had induced the complainant t accused Manjinder Singh and an Dilbagh Singh, father of Manjinder USA as agreed, they had sent his he had been detained and by paying amed accused, his return ticket was he accused Manjinder Singh instead ould try again to send his brother amount of Rs.22,55,000/- from the bai instead of USA. By alleging that d the co-accused Dilbagh Singh and the matter. an inquiry was conducted. It was lso working as an agent with co- f Rs.3 lakhs had been got deposited of the wife of the present petitioner deposited in the bank account of mself were nominated as additional ioner moved an application for grant smissed by the Court of Learned order dated 02.09.2025. l for the petitioner that he has been named in the FIR and therefore is no nant to part money from him. The d an inder t his ying was stead other the that and was - sited ioner nt of ional grant rned been is no The AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-57869- ingredients of offe is also one of the accused Manjinde accused had faile Manjinder Singh h the same in the ba the petitioner cam from the bank acc has already given action against th required. No re investigation. It is 5. Per co complainant has serious in nature established. For t his custodial int circumstance for g the petition does n 6. This C at considerable len -2025 (O&M) 3 of offence of cheating are not attracted of the victim in this case since he njinder Singh for the purpose of sen d failed to arrange any visa for hi ingh had returned part of the money the bank account of his wife and hims er came to know that the said amount nk account of the complainant. It is given a detailed representation to S nst the co-accused. His custodial No recovery is to be affected from n. It is, therefore, argued that the petiti Per contra, learned State counsel assi t has argued that the allegations ag ure. His active complicity in t For the purpose of conducting prop al interrogation is must. No e e for grant of pre-arrest bail is made o does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. tracted against him at all. In fact, he ce he had also given money to the of sending him abroad but the said for him. On his asking, accused oney given by him, by transferring himself. It was only at a later stage mount of money so transferred was It is also argued that the petitioner n to SSP, Kapurthala for initiating todial interrogation is as such not from him. He is ready to join e petition deserves to be allowed. el assisted by learned counsel for the ns against the petitioner are quite in the crime stands prima facie g proper investigation in the matter, No exceptional or extra-ordinary ade out. It is, therefore, argued that ubmissions made by both the parties t, he the said used rring stage was ioner ating not join r the quite facie , inary that rties AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-57869- 7. The p cheated the comp transferred in his a pretext of arrangin of the aforementio record a copy of Kapurthala on 24. Manjinder Singh. as well as this com consideration at t involvement of the amount of Rs.5, complainant to the 8. The a case is at its nasce can be granted i comparative safety within his knowle to the Investigatin thereby adversely that an order of an procedure of crim law that the powe -2025 (O&M) 4 The petitioner in connivance with the complainant of an amount of Rs.5, in his as well as his wife bank accoun rranging the visa for the brother of the mentioned amount of money. Though py of complaint (Annexure P-2) show on 24.08.2024 for the purpose of tak ingh. However, the authenticity of th is complaint is yet to be looked into a n at this stage. The allegations prim t of the petitioner in the commission o Rs.5,70,000/- was transferred from t to the bank account of the petitioner a The allegations against the petitione s nascent stage. It is well settled that a nted in exceptional circumstances o safety of pre-arrest bail would certa nowledge. In case custodial interrogat tigating Agency, that shall leave man ersely effecting the investigation. The r of anticipatory bail does not operate f criminal cases by the trial Court. It powers for grant of pre-arrest bail ar ith the co-accused is alleged to have Rs.5,70,000/- by getting the same ccount from the complainant on the of the complainant then duping him hough, the petitioner has placed on ) shown to have been given to SSP of taking action against co-accused y of the contents of these allegations into and hence cannot be taken into s prima facie reveal the factum of sion of the subject offences since an d from the bank account of the ioner as well as his wife. titioner are serious in nature. The that anticipatory bail to an accused ces only as a person couched in d certainly not disclose all the facts errogation of the petitioner is denied e many glaring loopholes and gaps, n. The Court is also required to see perate as inroad in the normal legal urt. It is well settled proposition of bail are to be exercised by the Court have same n the him d on SSP used tions into m of ce an the The used d in facts nied gaps, o see legal n of t AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-57869- in extra-ordinary taking into conside conviction may en circumstance is, h For the purpose interrogation of t discussed facts, th to be dismissed. 9. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 10. Since any, is rendered in 06.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 inary and exceptional circumstances onsideration the nature of the accusati ay entail. In the instant case, no such is, however, made out from the ple rpose of conducting thorough and p n of the petitioner is must. Taking cts, this Court is of the considered opi sed. According the same is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

ances and with great caution while ccusation and the sentence which the o such exceptional or extra-ordinary the pleas as taken by the petitioner. and proper investigation custodial aking into consideration the above red opinion that the petition deserves issed. vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
hile h the inary oner. odial bove erves y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.