CRM-M-29316-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29316-2026 Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 22.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 24.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Pritpal Singh Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 004 dated 22.01.2026 registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station PS NRI, District SBS Nagar. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Hardeep Singh, alleging that he was PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29316-2026 -2- introduced to the present petitioner, who was involved in the business of sending people abroad, by his acquaintance Jaspal Singh in August 2025. The petitioner had assured him that he would send him to Russia on a study visa and demanded a sum of ₹3,50,000/- for that purpose. He had represented that a visa would be issued in favour of the complainant for 15 months. Believing him, the complainant paid an amount of ₹25,000/- as advance to the petitioner. He was given a three-month study visa and, thereafter, an amount of ₹3,50,000/- was taken from him. The complainant had also borne the expenses of the ticket. He reached Russia and was made to spend money to take admission in the college against the representation of the petitioner that those expenses would be borne by him. His visa expired on 24.11.2025, but the petitioner did not get it extended. Even the college wherein he was admitted was closed, and it was with great difficulty that he was able to return to India. He demanded his money back, but in vain. As such, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, NRI Court, S.A.S. Nagar. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He had applied for the complainant's visa, which was legally approved, and the complainant had gone to Russia on a study visa. He himself returned to India at his own sweet will. The PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29316-2026 -3- ingredients for commission of the subject offences are not at all made out against him. He had joined the investigation as per the orders of the learned Special Court, NRI Court. He is ready to join further investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. Out of the amount received by him, an amount of ₹2,25,000/- had been spent towards the complainant's fees. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the complainant of an amount of ₹3,80,000/- on the pretext of sending him to Russia on a study visa for a period of 15 months and depositing his college fee and arranging tickets, accommodation, etc. However, he is alleged to have secured an offer letter from a college which was blacklisted by the Russian Government within three months. He is alleged to have misused his consultancy licence and to have cheated the complainant. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of the subject offence of cheating against him. He is a habitual offender, since as many as three other cases of similar nature have been PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29316-2026 -4- registered against him in the recent past. For the purpose of conducting a thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. More so, no exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are shown to be existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 24th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document