CRM-M-39752-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CRM-M-39752-2025 Date of decision: 28.07.2025 ASHISH MANCHANDA ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.72 dated 20.06.2024 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Zira, Ferozepur. 2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that complainants- Jagsir Singh and Shamsher Singh had moved a complaint against co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh Randhawa alleging that on the pretext of providing Visa for Australia to their families and they transferred Rs.89,42,500/- in the account of the present petitioner – namely NISHA 2025.07.28 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39752-2025 -2- Ashish Manchanda and he further transferred the money into the account of Kuldeep Singh Randhawa, Harish Dogra and his associates. He further submits that name of the petitioner has cropped up in the FIR only on the basis of the fact that money was transferred in the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab appearing on advance notice on instructions from Investigating officer vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of concession of anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner has actively participated in the forgery for providing Visa to the family of complainant as the alleged amount has been transferred in his account and thus warrants the need for custodial interrogation. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, after given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made by the counsel for both the parties it is found that the petitioner has been named in the FIR only on the basis of the fact that money was transferred in the account of the petitioner and State has failed to make out the case against the petitioner as to why his custodial interrogation is required. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioner has bona fide intentions and is willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period. NISHA 2025.07.28 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39752-2025 -3- 4. Relief Hence, in view of the admitted set of circumstances before this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS of which are reproduced below :- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stand cancelled. The petition in the aforesaid terms stand allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 28.07.2025 Nisha Yadav Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.07.28 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document