IN THE 102 Rajinder Kumar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Dr. Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-27112-2025 Allowed, Main case The Bharatiya Nagarik the petitioner in Sections 406, 420 Emigration Act, 2. As petitioner, who daughter to America Guatemala or Mexico amount of Rs.20,0 Rs.7,00,000/- was THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37598 Date of decision: Kumar @ Rohin Malik VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate the petitioner. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Advocate for ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2025 Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all The instant petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Act, 1983 at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, per the FIR, the complainant allured him for sending the America through an alternative route Mexico and demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was sought for was given in cash and Rs.13,00,000/ PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 37598-2025(O&M) decision: 26.02.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Punjab. the complainant. all just exceptions. filed under Section 482 of the grant of anticipatory bail to 09.06.2025 registered under 1860 and Section 24 of the Pathankot, District Pathankot. ant came in contact with the complainant, his wife and route via Dubai, Suriname, Rs.1 crore for the same. An as advance out of which Rs.13,00,000/- was given by way of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M) bank transfer. Fake tickets are alleged to have been sent by the petitioner alongwith fake visas to the complainant. The complainant and his family members were thus never sent abroad. The petitioner is also alleged to have not returned the amount. Only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was handed over. The passports of the complainant and his family members were retained by the petitioner. The photocopies of the fake visas and tickets sent by the petitioner were shared by the complainant with the police agency whereupon the FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had infact taken a loan from the complainant and could not repay the same on time. The events did not transpire in the manner as alleged. He further contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the money and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 4. A status report dated 05.08.2025 by way of an affidavit of Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Pathankot had been filed on behalf of the State. Copy of the same thereof stood furnished to the counsel for the petitioner as well. 5. It is specifically set out in the aforesaid status report that the petitioner had sent a PPR (Passport Request) on 18.11.2024 by WhatsApp and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The complainant informed the petitioner that the remaining amount would be paid only after receipt of the visa, whereupon the petitioner forwarded the photocopies of Canadian Visitor Visas for the complainant and his daughter in January, 2025. On verification, the visas were found to be forged. Accordingly investigation was initiated by the Economic Offences Wing of DPO, Pathankot vide SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M) complaint No.388-PGD dated 18.02.2025. Notices were issued, the parties joined investigation and the investigating officer came to a conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the aforesaid amount but returned only Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner retained Rs.16,00,000/- and original passports of the complainant, his wife and daughter thereby committing the offences as alleged. 6. It has further transpired from the documents on record and the proceedings recorded that the original passports of the complainant and his family members were handed over by the petitioner to them. The version of the petitioner that he is a farmer and has availed a loan thus fails to inspire any confidence as there is no reason as to why the petitioner would be in possession of the passports of the complainant. 7. Further, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment. 8. Counsel for the complainant, however, contends that initially the petitioner had entered into a settlement and a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was given towards discharge of liability, however, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, the petitioner issued another cheque of Rs.9,00,000/-. He further contends that the petitioner has no intention of paying the money as he does not have any money in his account. 9. This Court has also perused the order dated 08.09.2025 wherein it is specifically recorded that the petitioner handed over 05 original passports to the counsel for the complainant. It is further evident from perusal of order dated 19.12.2025 that taking note of the prayer made by the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M) petitioner for seeking settlement of the dispute, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and arrest of the petitioner was stayed. The petitioner however chose neither to appear before the Mediation Centre nor before the Court on subsequent dates or took any steps to show his willingness to settle the dispute. Consequently, vide order dated 03.02.2026, the interim granted by this Court on 19.12.2025 was vacated. On the subsequent date, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, a similar offer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for making the payment. 10. I am of the opinion that an offer to make the payment cannot be used as a bargain on the discretionary power of this Court to grant anticipatory bail. In case, the petitioner was genuine about entering into a settlement and to amicably resolve the issue, ample opportunities were made available to him prior to registration of FIR and even thereafter and also before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. This Court thus refuses to accept the aforesaid offer made by the petitioner as it is prima facie found lacking in bona fide and is only being devised to secure interim relief for himself. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another’ reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 observed that the proceedings in anticipatory bail are not a means of securing release of money. 12. It is noticed that there are specific allegations and which such allegations stand corroborated by the evidence collected by the respondent. It clearly prima facie establishes that the petitioner had allured the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M) complainant into parting with a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for sending him and his family abroad and that thereafter he forged the tickets and the visas to fleece more money. Besides, recovery of passports was effected from the petitioner and he has failed to explain how and under what circumstances did he come in possession of passports of all the family members of the complainant if he was not involved in the emigration activities. The documents show a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence, as alleged. 13. There are no such compelling circumstances or overwhelming evidence as would persuade this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 26.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document