CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 106 Lehna Singh State of Punjab and another Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 08.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre bearing FIR No.22 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 2. they, allege facilitating the immigration of his son United States of America sum of ₹35,00,000/ USA has been -33912-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singh and another V/s State of Punjab and another Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Uploading : 08.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner bearing FIR No.22 dated 24.01.2026, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner , allegedly induced the complainant, Teg facilitating the immigration of his son United States of America (USA). As per the complainant, he had 35,00,000/- to the accused person. has been arranged/secured for the son of the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33912-2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.2. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in case dated 24.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. the allegations against the petitioners is that dly induced the complainant, Tega Singh, on the pretext of namely Gurpinder Singh, to the As per the complainant, he had paid a total to the accused person. However, neither any visa of the son of the complainant nor amount petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as , in case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at is that a Singh, on the pretext of Gurpinder Singh, to the d a total of the complainant nor amount AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- in question has been to Thailand, where he r remained for two months instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. 3. been a material change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition dismissal of the petition by the Hon amicably resolved their dispute and a compromise dated 30.05.2026 has been executed between them. On the strength of the said compromise, it has been argued that the petitioner and no useful purpose would be served 4. present petition is not maintainable as the first anticipatory bail petition preferred by the petitioner State counsel, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which entitles the petitioner same cause. On merits, petition is nothing but an attempt Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been specific liberty granted by the Hon the competent Court and seek regular bail, the petitioner has consciously chosen not to comply with the said direction. Instead of surrendering before the Court below time seeking the very same relief of anticipatory bail, which already stands declined by this Court as wel -33912-2026 in question has been refunded. Instead the son of the complainant was sent to Thailand, where he remained for about one month remained for two months. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner been a material change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition(s). Learned counsel has dismissal of the petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the parties have bly resolved their dispute and a compromise dated 30.05.2026 has been executed between them. On the strength of the said compromise, it has been argued that the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and no useful purpose would be served by At the outset, learned State counsel has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the first anticipatory bail petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed counsel, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which entitles the petitioners to maintain the present second petition espousing the same cause. On merits, learned State counsel has iterated that petition is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the order passed by the ble Supreme Court. It has been further contended specific liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to surrender before the competent Court and seek regular bail, the petitioner has consciously chosen not to comply with the said direction. Instead of surrendering before Court below, the petitioners have approached this Court for a second time seeking the very same relief of anticipatory bail, which already stands declined by this Court as well as by the Hon 2 the son of the complainant was sent emained for about one month and Dubai where he On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that there has been a material change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the Learned counsel has further iterated that after the ble Supreme Court, the parties have bly resolved their dispute and a compromise dated 30.05.2026 has been executed between them. On the strength of the said compromise, it has deserve the concession of anticipatory bail y sending them behind the bars. At the outset, learned State counsel has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the first anticipatory bail petition dismissed on merits. According to learned counsel, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which to maintain the present second petition espousing the earned State counsel has iterated that the present to circumvent the order passed by the further contended that despite the ble Supreme Court to surrender before the competent Court and seek regular bail, the petitioner has consciously chosen not to comply with the said direction. Instead of surrendering before approached this Court for a second time seeking the very same relief of anticipatory bail, which already stands l as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been the son of the complainant was sent and Dubai where he On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the has iterated that there has been a material change in the circumstances since the dismissal of the iterated that after the ble Supreme Court, the parties have bly resolved their dispute and a compromise dated 30.05.2026 has been executed between them. On the strength of the said compromise, it has deserve the concession of anticipatory bail At the outset, learned State counsel has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the first anticipatory bail petition . According to learned counsel, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which to maintain the present second petition espousing the the present to circumvent the order passed by the that despite the ble Supreme Court to surrender before the competent Court and seek regular bail, the petitioner has consciously chosen not to comply with the said direction. Instead of surrendering before approached this Court for a second time seeking the very same relief of anticipatory bail, which already stands has been AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- further contended changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail particularly 5. contended that the compromise has been effected between the parties. 6. refer herein to the earlier dismissal order passed by this Court; relevant whereof reads as un -33912-2026 contended that the alleged compromise cannot be treated as a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail particularly. Learned counsel appearing for contended that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Before delving further into the matter, it would be apposite to refer herein to the earlier dismissal order passed by this Court; relevant whereof reads as under: “6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner and her co-accused are specifically named in the FIR and there are direct and specific allegations regarding defraudi on the pretext of sending son of the complainant aboard, but the petitioner and his co-accused neither honored their promise nor had returned the money in question to the complainant. 6.1. The offence in question does not mer deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of human trafficking and cross-border immigration fraud, which are not only grave in nature but also have far order. Cases of this nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with false promises of lawful migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and merit strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence. Human traffi garb of immigration consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon the desperation and dreams of unsuspecting citizens. The Courts must remain vigilant and ensure that such leniency at the pre-trial stage. Th migration, followed by subjecting individuals to inhumane and life threatening conditions abroad, not only reflects constitutes a serious affront to human dignity and national interest. The Court cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on transnational human trafficking. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence. 3 that the alleged compromise cannot be treated as a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of a prayer for grant of Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has contended that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Before delving further into the matter, it would be apposite to refer herein to the earlier dismissal order passed by this Court; relevant As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner accused are specifically named in the FIR and there are direct and specific allegations regarding defrauding/cheating the complainant on the pretext of sending son of the complainant aboard, but the petitioner accused neither honored their promise nor had returned the money in question to the complainant. The offence in question does not merely involve financial but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of border immigration fraud, which are not nature but also have far-reaching consequences on public nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and merit strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence. Human trafficking under the garb of immigration consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon unsuspecting citizens. The Courts must remain vigilant and ensure that such rackets are not emboldened by trial stage. The fraudulent inducement for illegal migration, followed by subjecting individuals to inhumane and life threatening conditions abroad, not only reflects criminal intent but also constitutes a serious affront to human dignity and national interest. The cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on transnational human trafficking. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence. that the alleged compromise cannot be treated as a grant of the respondent No.2 has Before delving further into the matter, it would be apposite to refer herein to the earlier dismissal order passed by this Court; relevant As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner accused are specifically named in the FIR and there are direct ng/cheating the complainant on the pretext of sending son of the complainant aboard, but the petitioner accused neither honored their promise nor had returned the ely involve financial but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of border immigration fraud, which are not reaching consequences on public nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and cking under the garb of immigration consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon unsuspecting citizens. The Courts must rackets are not emboldened by e fraudulent inducement for illegal migration, followed by subjecting individuals to inhumane and life- intent but also constitutes a serious affront to human dignity and national interest. The cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on transnational human trafficking. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33912-2026 6.2. Such offences strike at the disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and law, leaving no room for leniency. 6.3. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner defrauded him of a substantial amount under the false facilitating legal migration of his son to abroad, which caused severe financial and emotional distress. 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free i also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipat petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma [State SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. 4 h offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the room for leniency. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the usible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant categorically stated that the petitioner had defrauded him of a substantial amount under the false pretext of facilitating legal migration of his son to abroad, which caused severe It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea ticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no ecord to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the it would necessarily cause impediment in effective State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials aled. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals aspirations of innocent citizens activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such in accordance with the Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the usible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant had pretext of facilitating legal migration of his son to abroad, which caused severe It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea ticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the nvestigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no ecord to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the ory bail to the it would necessarily cause impediment in effective v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 eld as under : force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous informations and also materials aled. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often The AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. misconceived and not maintainable. The earlier petition petitioners reasoned and detailed order dated Thereafter, the petitioner Hon’ble Supreme Court Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the petitioner and moved an application for on merits. order, has again approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Such a course is impermissible for grant of anticipatory bail Supreme Court. petitioner However, the same does not advance the case of the petitioner compromise cannot override Supreme Court. The conduct of the petitioner assumes significance. Despite being afforded an opportunity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to surrender -33912-2026 argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. 8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is he At the outset, this Court finds that the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The earlier petition petitioners seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned and detailed order dated 24.02.2026 and Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 has posed ble Supreme Court but also did not succeed. The Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the petitioner No.2 by observing that in case and moved an application for grant of regular bail, the same be considered on merits. However, the petitioner No.2, instead of complying with the said order, has again approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Such a course is impermissible for grant of anticipatory bail has already been declined Supreme Court. The only circumstance sought to be projected by the petitioners as a fresh ground is the alleged compromise dated 30.05.2026. However, the same does not advance the case of the petitioner compromise cannot override or dilute the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The conduct of the petitioner assumes significance. Despite being afforded an opportunity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to surrender 5 argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the -degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. hat responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.” At the outset, this Court finds that the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The earlier petition preferred by seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by a 24.02.2026 and 21.04.2026 respectively posed challenge thereto before the also did not succeed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the by observing that in case he surrendered within two weeks regular bail, the same be considered , instead of complying with the said order, has again approached this Court seeking the concession of anticipatory bail. Such a course is impermissible particularly when the plea has already been declined upto the Hon’ble The only circumstance sought to be projected by the as a fresh ground is the alleged compromise dated 30.05.2026. However, the same does not advance the case of the petitioners as or dilute the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The conduct of the petitioner assumes significance. Despite being afforded an opportunity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to surrender argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. hat responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The At the outset, this Court finds that the present petition is wholly preferred by seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court by a respectively. challenge thereto before the ble Supreme Court, while declining interference, granted a limited indulgence to the surrendered within two weeks regular bail, the same be considered , instead of complying with the said the concession of particularly when the plea ble The only circumstance sought to be projected by the as a fresh ground is the alleged compromise dated 30.05.2026. the or dilute the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The conduct of the petitioner assumes significance. Despite being afforded an opportunity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to surrender AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and seek regular bail, he has failed to do so. This Court is, considered opinion that no fresh circumstance has arisen which would justify entertaining a second petition for anticipatory bail, particularly when the earlier order of rejection has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and t therein. 8. (i) at this stage. (ii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the being influenced with this order. (iii) July 08, 202 Ajay -33912-2026 and seek regular bail, he has failed to do so. This Court is, considered opinion that no fresh circumstance has arisen which would justify entertaining a second petition for anticipatory bail, particularly when the earlier order of rejection has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner No.2 has failed to comply with the liberty granted In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at this stage. Any observations made and/or shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 6 and seek regular bail, he has failed to do so. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that no fresh circumstance has arisen which would justify entertaining a second petition for anticipatory bail, particularly when the earlier order of rejection has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme has failed to comply with the liberty granted In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency further, in accordance with law, without ny, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No therefore, of the considered opinion that no fresh circumstance has arisen which would justify entertaining a second petition for anticipatory bail, particularly when the earlier order of rejection has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme has failed to comply with the liberty granted The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed submissions noted hereinabove the investigating agency without AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document