CRM-M-46333-2026 -1- 232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46333-2026 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Ramandeep @ Ramandeep Singh @ Rocky …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.270 dated 22.11.2025, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 420, 120-B of IPC) and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case at the instance of Shaminder Singh, complainant, who has retired from Punjab Police. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had projected himself as a travel agent and had allegedly received a sum of Rs.42 lakhs from the complainant on the pretext of sending his son to USA. However, there is no evidence regarding the payment of money to him. Apart from that, son of the complainant, namely, Jagjeet Singh is working in Mexico and is in regular touch with his family members through various modes HEMLATA 2026.09.03 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46333-2026 -2- of communication. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 23.04.2026 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented against him. He further contends that all the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 04 months. However, the trial is not even formally commenced against him. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 02.09.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.09.03 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document