IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 111 CRM-M-33657-2026 Date of Decision.:12.06.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Soni …..Pe00oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Zorawar S. Chauhan, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner has approached this Court under Secon 482 of the Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking ancipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 16.01.2026 registered under Secons 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Staon Bhikhi, District Mansa. 2. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that the dispute is essenally of a civil nature arising out of business transacons between the pares. It is submi3ed that no amount was received by the peoner personally; that there existed regular monetary dealings between the pares; that a se3lement had also been arrived at; and that nothing remains to be recovered from the peoner. It is further argued that the peoner is ready and willing to join invesgaon and, therefore, custodial interrogaon is not warranted. 3. Noce of moon. 4. Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab accepts noce on behalf NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33657-2026 -2- of respondent- State and Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of a3orney. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, opposes the peon. It is submi3ed that the peoner, in conspiracy with co-accused, induced the complainant to pay a huge amount on the false promise of sending his daughter abroad and therea<er supplied forged and fabricated documents including educaonal offer le3ers and visa-related documents. It is further argued that custodial interrogaon is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the fraud was commi3ed, the role of other persons involved and the trail of the money allegedly collected from the complainant and other vicms. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and have gone through the record. 7. As per the allegaons in the FIR, the peoner and his wife represented themselves as immigraon consultants and induced the complainant to pay an amount of ₹24,96,300/- for sending his daughter to Canada. It is alleged that despite receiving the amount, the peoner failed to arrange the promised visa and repeatedly supplied forged and fabricated documents to maintain the decepon. The complainant further alleges that even a purported visa sent through WhatsApp was subsequently found to be fake. 8. At the stage of consideraon of ancipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meculous examinaon of the evidence. The allegaons disclose a prima facie case involving systemac cheang and decepon extending over a considerable period of me. The accusaons are not confined merely to non-performance of a contractual obligaon but include allegaons of inducement, fabricaon of documents and use of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33657-2026 -3- forged documents to extract money from the complainant. 9. The Supreme Court in State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, has held that custodial interrogaon is qualitavely more elicitaon-oriented than quesoning a suspect protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Similarly, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, it has been observed that economic offences constute a disnct class and are required to be viewed seriously, having regard to their impact upon society and the economy. 10. The power to grant ancipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and is to be exercised sparingly, parcularly where serious allegaons of cheang involving substanal amounts of money and a larger modus operandi are under invesgaon. In the present case, the invesgaon is at a crucial stage. The prosecuon has specifically asserted that custodial interrogaon of the peoner is required to trace the money trail, idenfy the role of other persons involved and recover relevant material connected with the alleged fraud. This Court finds no reason to discard such requirement at this stage. 11. The contenon that the ma3er is purely civil in nature also does not merit acceptance. Mere existence of a monetary transacon or a claim for refund of money would not by itself exclude criminal liability where the allegaons disclose dishonest inducement from the incepon and the use of allegedly forged documents to perpetuate the decepon. 12. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that the prosecuon has brought on record the existence of other criminal cases involving similar allegaons against the peoner. Though such cases are not to be treated as proof of guilt, they are relevant circumstances while considering the discreonary relief of ancipatory bail. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33657-2026 -4- 13. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusaons, the amount allegedly involved, the allegaons regarding use of forged documents, the requirement of custodial interrogaon and the stage of invesgaon, this Court is of the considered opinion that the peoner has failed to make out a case for grant of ancipatory bail. 14. Consequently, the present peon is dismissed. 15. However, anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice either side during trial. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE June 12, 2024 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document