IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-32338-2025 (O&M) Date of Order:13.06.2025 Manoj Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. K.K.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab. ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral) 1. After arguing for some time and upon realizing that the court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel representing the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present petition, which is declined. 2. The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from FIR No.146, dated 02.05.2024, registered under Section 406, 420, 120-B, 409 IPC, (Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC added later on), at Police Station Sohana, District Mohali. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner collected Rs.86,70,000/- from gullible individuals who were interested in migrating to foreign lands. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that he has collected the amount on behalf of Pardeep Gupta and his son and the petitioner was to get only a commission of 2 to 3% on the aforesaid amount. Hence, the petitioner is not a beneficiary. He further submits that Pardeep Gupta has been granted the concession of regular bail. NARESH KUMAR 2025.06.13 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32338-2025 (O&M) -2- 5. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner. 6. The petitioner himself admits that he collected more than Rs.86,00,000/- from various persons while promising to arrange their visas for migrating to foreign lands. Even if the petitioner collected the amount on behalf of Pardeep Gupta and his son, still the petitioner, at this stage, cannot claim himself to be innocent. Mr. Pardeep Gupta was granted bail after his custodial interrogation. 7. In such cases, the entire chain of persons involved in the crime is required to be unearthed particularly in view of the fact that it is affecting the younger population of Northern India. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out. 9. Dismissed. 10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE June 13, 2025 nt Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.06.13 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document