CRM-M-21846-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-21846-2026 Decided on :22.07.2026 Atul Khurana . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. A.P.S. Shergil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in case FIR No. 0029 dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-3), registered under the provisions of the repealed Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite the fact that the initial complaint was submitted on 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), i.e. after the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further prayed that impugned order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, may kindly be cancelled/set aside, as the same has been passed without proper appreciation of the statutory provisions, material facts, documentary evidence, and the specific stand of the Investigating Officer, who had RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21846-2026 2 sought further police remand of respondent No. 2 for the purpose of effecting recovery of the cheated amount and tracing the money trail in the matter involving allegations of serious economic offences, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. 2. Complainant (petitioner herein)-Atul Khurana himself was engaged in the business of travel agency. Main accused in the case, namely, Gursharanjit Singh Kalra, who is settled abroad, was also engaged in the same business in Canada. It was main accused- Gursharanjit Singh Kalra who had assured the complainant (petitioner herein) that for the persons desirous of settling abroad, he would process the applications and assist them in the process of obtaining permanent residency and visas. 3. Petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 77 lakhs with the main accused-Gursharanjit Singh Kalra. However, only an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to respondent No. 2-Amandeep Singh, who happens to be the brother-in-law of Gursharanjit Singh Kalra. 4. Learned Trial Court granted the concession of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 05.03.2026, while observing as under: “5. Even as per allegations of complainant, no amount has been transferred in the account of accused/applicant Amandeep Singh. As per allegations of complainant, he has jointly paid the amount of Rs.5 Lacs to the main accused Gursharanjit Singh Kara and his brother in law Amandeep Singh. He seems to be implicated in the present case being brother in law of RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21846-2026 3 main accused Gursharanjit Singh Kalra, Who has been residing abroad and the accused/applicant has been residing in India. Perusal of the record, it has been revealed that accused/ applicant has been ordered to join the investigation vide order dated 24.02.2026. Today, ASI Lakhwinder Singh has appeared and suffered a statement that accused/ applicant has joined the investigation and no new offence has been added during the investigation. He further stated that custodial interrogation of accused/applicant is not required for further investigation. Regarding it, learned Addl. PP for State argued that the accused/applicant is close relative of main accused Gursharanjit Singh Kalra and during investigation he himself stated that he alongwith other accused has cheated the complainant Atul Khurana. Even he has not been co-operating. in the investigation as he has not been stating the address of other Accused.” 5. This Court has also noticed that respondent No. 2 had already joined the investigation and it was the Investigating Officer who had stated before the learned Trial Court that custodial interrogation was no longer required. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said observation has been wrongly recorded, as the status report filed before this Court specifically mentions that custodial interrogation of respondent No. 2 is required (para 16 of the affidavit). RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21846-2026 4 The conduct of the answering respondent in the affidavit filed before this Court is prima facie a matter of concern, as an attempt appears to have been made to contradict the proceedings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in the order dated 05.03.2026. However, without entering into the said issue at this stage, the present petition is disposed of. To avoid unnecessary delay, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, is directed to examine the contradictory stands taken by the police authorities, particularly the variance between the stand taken by the Investigating Officer before the learned Trial Court and the stand reflected in the status report filed before this Court. Such a casual approach by a disciplined force requires appropriate examination at the instance of the head of the district police. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from today, and report regarding the action taken and the outcome of such examination shall be submitted to this Court immediately thereafter. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, for necessary information and compliance. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document