CRM-M-15794- 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Lalitya Handa State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0145 dated 20.08.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4) and 316(2) BNS) along with Section 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 2. The present case arises out of allegations that the petitioner along with co-accused induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of arranging a Canadian work visa through their f despite receiving the amount, the accused failed to fulfill the promise, delayed the process, and ultimately neither provided the visa nor returned the money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is merely an employee of the owner of the firm and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that whatever amount was received in the account of -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0145 dated 20.08.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4) and 316(2) BNS) along with Section 24 of the Immigration Act on Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. The present case arises out of allegations that the petitioner along with accused induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of arranging a Canadian work visa through their f despite receiving the amount, the accused failed to fulfill the promise, delayed the process, and ultimately neither provided the visa nor returned the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is merely an employee of the owner of the firm and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that whatever amount was received in the account of -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15794-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0145 dated 20.08.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4) and 316(2) BNS) along with Section 24 of the Immigration Act on Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. The present case arises out of allegations that the petitioner along with accused induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of arranging a Canadian work visa through their firm. It is alleged that despite receiving the amount, the accused failed to fulfill the promise, delayed the process, and ultimately neither provided the visa nor returned the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is merely an employee of the owner of the firm and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that whatever amount was received in the account of This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0145 dated 20.08.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4) and 316(2) BNS) along with Section 24 of the Immigration Act The present case arises out of allegations that the petitioner along with accused induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on irm. It is alleged that despite receiving the amount, the accused failed to fulfill the promise, delayed the Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is merely an employee of the owner of the firm and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that whatever amount was received in the account of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15794- the petitioner has already been credited to the account of the owner of the firm and that the petitioner has not received even a single penny. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- behalf of the complainant and record. 6. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail levelled against the petitioner of duping the comp promise of arranging a Canada work visa through their firm. It is further contended that the petitioner was a signatory to the payment agreement as well as to the receipt of ₹13 lakhs. The petitioner is not merely an emplo said firm, rather he is one of the managers. Documents placed on record show that both the petitioner and co in the firm. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th 8. In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, particularly his active role in the transaction and the fact that he is a signatory to the receipt of the amount in question, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely an employee but was actively involved in the affairs of the firm as a manager and was instrumental in receiving the amount from the complainant. -2026 (O&M) the petitioner has already been credited to the account of the owner of the firm and he petitioner has not received even a single penny. Notice of motion. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of -State. Mr. Suneel Sharma, Advocate, behalf of the complainant and has filed power of attorney Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of duping the comp promise of arranging a Canada work visa through their firm. It is further contended that the petitioner was a signatory to the payment agreement as well as to the ₹13 lakhs. The petitioner is not merely an emplo said firm, rather he is one of the managers. Documents placed on record show that both the petitioner and co-accused Nikhil have been reflected as business managers Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, particularly his active role in the transaction and the fact that he is a signatory to the receipt of the amount in question, this Court is not inclined to grant the on of anticipatory bail. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely an employee but was actively involved in the affairs of the firm as a manager and was instrumental in receiving the amount from the complainant. -2- the petitioner has already been credited to the account of the owner of the firm and he petitioner has not received even a single penny. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of . Mr. Suneel Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance filed power of attorney, which is taken on Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of duping the complainant of ₹13 lakhs on the false promise of arranging a Canada work visa through their firm. It is further contended that the petitioner was a signatory to the payment agreement as well as to the ₹13 lakhs. The petitioner is not merely an employee or servant in the said firm, rather he is one of the managers. Documents placed on record show that accused Nikhil have been reflected as business managers Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, particularly his active role in the transaction and the fact that he is a signatory to the receipt of the amount in question, this Court is not inclined to grant the on of anticipatory bail. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely an employee but was actively involved in the affairs of the firm as a manager and was instrumental in receiving the amount from the petitioner has already been credited to the account of the owner of the firm and Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of on , which is taken on Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that serious allegations have been ₹13 lakhs on the false promise of arranging a Canada work visa through their firm. It is further contended that the petitioner was a signatory to the payment agreement as well as to the yee or servant in the said firm, rather he is one of the managers. Documents placed on record show that accused Nikhil have been reflected as business managers In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, particularly his active role in the transaction and the fact that he is a signatory to the receipt of the amount in question, this Court is not inclined to grant the on of anticipatory bail. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely an employee but was actively involved in the affairs of the firm as a manager and was instrumental in receiving the amount from TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15794- 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. However, expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 23, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) Considering the nature and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- Considering the nature and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Considering the nature and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document