CRM-M-7959-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (205) BALWINDER KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory registered under Sections 420, Taran, District Tarn Taran. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant petitioner and her son Sarwan S and had demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for issuance of visa. He had deposited an amount of Rs.19,90,000/ agreed to give the remaining amount on reaching of his so also given two security cheques to the petitioner and the co 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALWINDER KAUR Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Satnam Singh petitioner and her son Sarwan Singh had assured him to send his son Australia and had demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for issuance of visa. He had deposited an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner and had agreed to give the remaining amount on reaching of his so also given two security cheques to the petitioner and the co IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7959-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant preferred by the petitioner under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.110 dated 09.05.2025 B of IPC at Police Station City Tarn The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Satnam Singh, alleging therein that the ingh had assured him to send his son Australia and had demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for issuance of visa. He had deposited in the bank account of the petitioner and had agreed to give the remaining amount on reaching of his son at Australia. He had also given two security cheques to the petitioner and the co-accused. The (O&M) 2026 under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 110 dated 09.05.2025 B of IPC at Police Station City Tarn The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written alleging therein that the ingh had assured him to send his son Australia and had demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for issuance of visa. He had deposited in the bank account of the petitioner and had n at Australia. He had accused. The AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7959-2026 petitioner and co coming to know about this fact the complainant demanded money given to them but instead of returning the same, they started abusing him. As such the complainant prayed for taking action against the petitioner and the co After registration underway. During the co petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending her arrest moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions 21.06.2025. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is not people abroad. She never met the complainant and has to being mother of the co there is dispute of money between the son of the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant had taken an amount of Rs.5 lakh in cash from Sarwan Si and had assured to return the same by March, 2025. The complainant had also issued cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakh on 18.03.2025 in favour of his son. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Her son Sarwan Singh had filed a complaint under Se this FIR was lodged. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. The amount of Rs.19,90,000/- deposited in her bank account on the instruction of her son Sarwan Singh by the complainant and the p same as the said account had been used by her son. The co 2026 (O&M) 2 petitioner and co-accused gave a forged visa for Australia to his son and on coming to know about this fact the complainant demanded money given to them instead of returning the same, they started abusing him. As such the complainant prayed for taking action against the petitioner and the co After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of the investigation, Sardul Singh petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending her arrest moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is not involved in the business of sending people abroad. She never met the complainant and has to being mother of the co-accused Sarwan Singh who is living abroad. In fact there is dispute of money between the son of the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant had taken an amount of Rs.5 lakh in cash from Sarwan Si and had assured to return the same by March, 2025. The complainant had also issued cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakh on 18.03.2025 in favour of his son. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Her son Sarwan Singh had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter, this FIR was lodged. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. The amount of deposited in her bank account on the instruction of her son Sarwan Singh by the complainant and the petitioner had no knowledge about the same as the said account had been used by her son. The co accused gave a forged visa for Australia to his son and on coming to know about this fact the complainant demanded money given to them instead of returning the same, they started abusing him. As such the complainant prayed for taking action against the petitioner and the co-accused. of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are urse of the investigation, Sardul Singh-husband of the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been involved in the business of sending people abroad. She never met the complainant and has been implicated only due accused Sarwan Singh who is living abroad. In fact there is dispute of money between the son of the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant had taken an amount of Rs.5 lakh in cash from Sarwan Singh and had assured to return the same by March, 2025. The complainant had also issued cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakh on 18.03.2025 in favour of his son. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Her son Sarwan Singh had filed a ction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter, this FIR was lodged. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. The amount of deposited in her bank account on the instruction of her son etitioner had no knowledge about the same as the said account had been used by her son. The co-accused Sardul accused gave a forged visa for Australia to his son and on coming to know about this fact the complainant demanded money given to them instead of returning the same, they started abusing him. As such the accused. of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are husband of the the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been involved in the business of sending been implicated only due accused Sarwan Singh who is living abroad. In fact there is dispute of money between the son of the petitioner and the complainant. ngh and had assured to return the same by March, 2025. The complainant had also issued cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakh on 18.03.2025 in favour of his son. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Her son Sarwan Singh had filed a ction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter, this FIR was lodged. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. The amount of deposited in her bank account on the instruction of her son etitioner had no knowledge about the accused Sardul AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7959-2026 Singh has been granted benefit of months in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. She has returned an amount of Rs.5,05,000/ investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. An amount of Rs.19,90,000/ deposited in her saving bank account by the complainant and she had returned an amount of Rs.5,05,000/ been prima facie proper investigation in the matter, he exceptional or extra out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions ma for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner in connivance with the co duped the complainant of an amount of Rs.19,90,000/ her son abroad. The allegations against he The fact that an amount of Rs.19,90,000/ from the bank account of the complainant also reveal the factum of her complicity in the crime. 2026 (O&M) 3 Singh has been granted benefit of anticipatory months in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. She has returned an amount of Rs.5,05,000/- to the complainant. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended arrest bail. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. An amount of Rs.19,90,000/ her saving bank account by the complainant and she had returned an amount of Rs.5,05,000/- to the complainant. Her complicity in the crime has prima facie established. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, her custodial interrogation is required. No exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions ma for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner in connivance with the co duped the complainant of an amount of Rs.19,90,000/ her son abroad. The allegations against her are specific and serious in nature. The fact that an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- was transferred in her bank account from the bank account of the complainant also reveal the factum of her complicity in the crime. The case is at its nascent stage. It is we anticipatory bail. There is a delay of 05 months in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. She has already to the complainant. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. An amount of Rs.19,90,000/- was admittedly her saving bank account by the complainant and she had returned to the complainant. Her complicity in the crime has established. For the purpose of conducting thorough and r custodial interrogation is required. No ordinary circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have duped the complainant of an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- on the pretext of sending r are specific and serious in nature. was transferred in her bank account from the bank account of the complainant also reveal the factum of her The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that bail. There is a delay of 05 already to the complainant. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific was admittedly her saving bank account by the complainant and she had returned to the complainant. Her complicity in the crime has established. For the purpose of conducting thorough and r custodial interrogation is required. No ordinary circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made de by learned counsel accused is alleged to have on the pretext of sending r are specific and serious in nature. was transferred in her bank account from the bank account of the complainant also reveal the factum of her ll settled that AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-7959-2026 anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation o petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre exercised by the Court in extra great caution while ta sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra as taken by the petitioner. For the purpose investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 09.07.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 4 anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation o petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre exercised by the Court in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution while taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by the petitioner. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with king into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only arrest bail would certainly not f the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well arrest bail are to be ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with king into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.