CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) Kaushal Singh Minhas @ Rahul ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the 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. Mayur Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.67, dated 29.04.2025, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, at Police Station Urban Estate Patiala, District Patiala. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) -2- complaint submitted by complainant – Neeraj Sharma, alleging therein that the petitioner, who had made an advertisement on social media representing that he was doing the work of sending people abroad, had been contacted by him in December, 2022 since he was interested to go abroad. The petitioner had introduced him with the complainant and his partner Amrish Kumar. Both of them had assured to sent him to Australia on work permit and had asked him that expenses to the tune of Rs.20-25 lakhs will have to be incurred by the complainant. The complainant and his family members had agreed to the same. Initially, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and original passport of the complainant was given to the petitioner. One friend and one relative of the complainant had also contacted the petitioner, who too were assured to be sent abroad on payment of similar amount of money. The complainant and his relative/friend made payment of an amount of Rs.57,13,000/- to the petitioner and his partner for the purpose of going to Australia on work permit. However, neither they were sent abroad nor their money was returned to them. After repeated visits of the complainant to the office of the petitioner and after harassment, only an amount of Rs.15 lakhs had been returned to the complainant. The petitioner had issued two cheques of Rs.10 lakhs in his favour but told him to not to deposit the same by promising that he would return his money but to no avail. By alleging that he had been duped at the hands of the petitioner and his partner, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which had been HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) -3- dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 05.01.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute between the parties is purely of financial nature which has been resolved through a prior settlement, as per which the complainant had agreed to accept a settlement amount of Rs.6.70 lakhs after filing a complaint at one police station. However, after a gap of 02, this FIR was lodged. The petitioner had admittedly returned an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant. The passports of the complainant and his relative/friend had also been returned. Payments had been made to the complainant through bank transactions which were accepted by the complainant during the period from 29.03.2023 to 12.06.2023 as reflected in para 4(v) of the petition. Even thereafter, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.3.48 lakhs during the period from 01.08.2023 to 23.08.2023 for the purpose of sending some other persons to Ukraine. If any fraud was committed by the petitioner upon the complainant, then he would not have done so. The ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not at all attracted qua him. Even otherwise, these offences are ante thesis to each other. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. The complainant and his relative/friend had made payment of a sum of Rs.57,13,000/- to the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) -4- petitioner for the purpose of going abroad. However, they were not sent there. Only an amount of Rs.15 lakhs had been returned by the petitioner. The complainant and other victims suffered wrongful loss of money on account of inducement made by the petitioner and his partner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for effecting recovery of the amount in question as well as for unearthing the full conspiracy. There is no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserved to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have induced the complainant and his relative/friend to part with a huge amount of money on the premise of sending them on work permit to Australia. However, they were not sent there. As per own claim of the petitioner, he had returned an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioner and other victims. This very admission on his part shows his prima facie complicity in the commission of offence of cheating. The case is still at its nascent stage. For the purpose conducting deeper and thorough probe into the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is well settled proposition of law that powers for grant of anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and not in routine manner. No such circumstance, however, has been made out in this case. If the petitioner is given the shield of anticipatory bail that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3253-2026 (O&M) -5- operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document