CRM-M-37734-2025 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CRM-M-37734-2025 Date of decision: 17th September, 2025 Ramandeep @ Manraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Rishi Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant. *** 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. 83 dated 09.02.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 10 and 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, Haryana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Navjot Kaur alleging that the petitioner and co-accused Kanika Sharma had duped her family and herself of a sum of Rs. 24,35,000/- on the premise of sending her entire family to Canada on work permit. The petitioner had represented himself as an immigration lawyer at that time. Some amount of money was deposited in the account of Real Gateway of Migration and Rudraksh Group Overseas Parveen Sharma 2025.09.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37734-2025 2- (for short, ‘RGM’) which was claimed to be owned by Rakesh Rikhi by the petitioner. However, neither any work permit was issued nor the money as taken by the petitioner and co-accused had been returned despite repeated requests and demands. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Rikhi were arrested on 17.03.2025. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was merely a clerk/assistant in RGM company. No transaction of money had taken place between him and the complainant. Co-accused Rakesh Rikhi owner of the company was the master mind of the crime. He has not received any financial benefits. His further incarceration is not going to serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender and is involved in seven other cases of similar nature. There are chances of his absconding, intimidating the witnesses or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. The complainant had paid a huge amount of money to the petitioner and co-accused through UPI and also in cash. The petitioner played a significant role in alluring the complainant by posing as an immigration lawyer. It is, therefore, urged that he does not deserve to be released on bail. Parveen Sharma 2025.09.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37734-2025 3- 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have duped the complainant of a huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her family and herself abroad. He was an employee of RGM company but allured the complainant by representing that he was an immigration lawyer. He is alleged to have facilitated the commission of offence of cheating by the co-accused. He has been in custody since 17.03.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. There is no material on record to show that he was direct beneficiary of the crime. Keeping in view the nature of the subject offences, the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the fact that trial will take time to conclude and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 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 allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 17th September, 2025 Parveen Sharma 2025.09.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37734-2025 4- Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.09.18 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document