1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before
this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which
reads as follows:
"It is entered at this time that one order number SSP, Sangrur No.
PGD-ID 243671, application filed by Sarabjeet Kaur W/O Late S.
Manjeet Singh R/O Village Kohriya Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur
against Shamsher Singh S/O Gurdeep Singh R/O village Namol and
Paramjeet Kaur W/O Pyara Singh and Gaganjot Singh (now abroad)
S/O Paramjeet Kaur residents of Bhathal Colony Sangrur has been
received in the Police Station Dirba through post office for registration
of FIR under Section 420/120-B of IPC and 13 of Punjab Traveller
Regulation Act. The details thereof are To, Additional Director General
of Police, Patiala Zone Patiala. Sub: Application against Paramjeet
Kaur, Gaganjot Singh S/O Paramjeet Kaur R/O Bhathal Colony,
Sangrur and Shamsher Singh R/O Village Namol Tehsil Sunam District
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6811-2025
Sangrur for committing fraud of Rs. 32 lakh 78 thousand for providing
work permit of a company in U.K. to my son Harpreet Singh and his
wife Kulwinder Kaur. Sir, It is requested that I, Sarabjeet Kaur widow
of Late Malkeet Singh R/O Village Kohriya Tehsil Sunam District
Sangrur and submitted that I have 2 sons and 1 girl (unmarried). My
one son Harpreet Singh, who is married with Kulwinder Kaur. That one
person Shamsher Singh, who is working as a peon in Private Hospital
and was known to my son Harpreet Singh. He told that une woman
namely Paramjeet Kaur is known to him, who is a travel agent and used
to send persons to abroad. He may send my wife to U.K. on s good
salary package. My sons are intending to go to abroad. I have land
measuring 2 kila and it is difficult tomanage the expenditures. Then
Shamsher Singh took me to the house of Paramjeet Kaur at Sangrur.
Her son Gaganjot Singh was also present there and they said that it will
costs upto Rs. 25 lakh and they will be send them to U.K. on work
permit. Then my son and daughter-in-law agreed for the same. Then
they provided us a work permit of In Home Care Company, U.K. for a
period of 3 years alongwith visa. When I reached at abroad, they said
that more amount of Rs. 7-8 lakh will be costs more. In this way, I have
sold the land measuring and given an amount of Rs. 21 lakh to
Paramjeet Kaur and her son Gaganjot Singh in the presence of his
friend (unknown). At that Shamsher Singh was on duty, thus he cannot
come present. Therefore, at that time, my son Harpreet Singh, Gurdeep
Singh took the above sad amount and both went away. Video recording
thereof is attached herewith. Remaining amount of Rs. 5 Lakh 57
thousand was transferred in the bank account of Gaganjot Singh S/O
Paramjeet Kaur. In this regard, list of the accounts are enclosed
herewith. In June 2023, when my son Harpreet Singh and Kulwinder
Kaur went to above said company, then concerned company disclosed
that they do not have any type of work. They said that she (Bimal Patel)
told that she had earlier sent mail to her i.e., Kulwinder Kaur to get
back your amount to whomsoever it has been given. Copy of the
concerned mail is annexed herewith. Due to the above said fraud, now
my children are in such position that the concerned officials of U.K. can
depot them back to India anytime, because my children are jobless and
concerned company has also intimated the embassy to depot them. I
have also filed an application to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Sangrur with regard to above said fraud. He has forwarded my
application to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Sangrur
on 12.10.2023. He has called me and my family members for 5-7 times
(9 AM to 5 PM) and then sent us back in the evening and used to said
that have you given the money after asking me. We told to Deputy
Superintendent of Police that company has refused for the same, her
children cannot stay there because it will costs an amount of Rs. 20/22
Lakh for new work. But Deputy Superintendent of Police called her on
one or two occasions. But, thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police
started saying that they do not have any amount, whereas we have given
an amount of Rs. 32,78,000/- to Madam Paramjeet Kaur, Gagjeet Singh,
Shamsher Singh. Then we said that we have all the evidences. Mail has
also been received from the company and bank proofs are also present.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6811-2025
FIR may kindly be registered with regard to above said fraud. I am
widow and do not have any support. Neither above said Deputy
Superintendent of Police is redressing my grievance, nor is taking any
legal action because above said woman is having good relations with
Sangrur Police. Therefore, no one is redressing my grievances, thus I
have approached your goodself. Enquiry in my matter may kindly be get
conducted from any other officer in District Sangrur and grievance of a
widow be redressed. My hard earned money which have been given by
me to the above said fraudsters by selling my land measuring 2 and half
Killas. My amount may kindly be returned to me. Appropriate legal
action may kindly be taken against them for committing fraud with me,
who is a widow. My grievance may kindly be redressed from some
impartial officer and justice be given to me. I shall be thankful to you.
Yours sincerely RTI Sarabjeet Kaur."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner
and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail.
6. State counsel submits that an amount of Rs.5,97,100/- was transferred in the
account of the petitioner and has drawn attention to para no.7 of status report which reads
as follows:
"7. A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER SHAMSHER SINGH
The present FIR was registered against accused/petitioner Shamsher
Singh and two other co-accused on the basis of application PGD No.
243671 submitted by Sarabjit Kaur, inquiry conducted by DSP(D),
Sangrur duly approved by the SSP, Sangrur. During the
investigation, it was duly substantiated that as per the detailed facts
submitted in para No. 3 above, accused/petitioner Shamsher Singh
in connivance with his other co-accused have obtained Rs.
33,78,100/- from the complainant party (i.e 12,78,100/-through
online transaction and 21,00,000/- in cash) under the pretext of
sending Harpreet Singh son of Complainant and Kulwinder Kaur
wife of Harpreet Singh to abroad. However, neither they sent both of
them to abroad, nor return the said amount and as such they
committed cheating with the complainant party. So, a specific role is
attributed to the petitioner in the commission of present offence.
B. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
i) The present FIR was registered against accused/petitioner
Shamsher Singh (by name) and his two other co-accused on the
basis of application PGD No. 243671 submitted by Sarabjit Kaur,
inquiry conducted by DSP(D), Sangrur duly approved by the SSP,
Sangrur.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6811-2025
ii) As per the detailed facts submitted above, Rs. 5,97,100/- were
found to be transferred in the account no. 110055155808 of Canera
Bank of accused Shamsher Singh of accused/petitioner by the
complainant party.
iii) From the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. it
clearly revealed that the petitioner had played an active role in the
commission of the present offence."
7. An analysis of the allegations made in the FIR and the contents of status report
would lead to the following outcome. As per FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is
that he introduced the complainant-victim to Paramjit Kaur and Gaganjot Singh. Later on,
he even took them to the house of Paramjit Kaur and all the deals regarding demand of
Rs.25 lacs were entered into his presence. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that when the
victim paid Rs.21 lacs to Paramjit Kaur and her son Gaganjot Singh, at that time,
petitioner was on duty and was not present. Even as per status report, Rs.5,97,100/- was
found to be transferred in the account of the petitioner. In this region, craze for leaving
India and working outside is so huge that even fraudsters take advantage. Petitioner
appears to be the person who wanted to take a cut from the main accused who were
indulging in immigration business. It prima facie appears that for that purpose, he took
the complainant to the main accused namely Paramjit Kaur and her son Gaganjot Singh.
Thus, Rs.5,97,100/- was a fraction of the total amount of Rs.33,78,100/-. Although
petitioner has not taken stand about why this amount of Rs.5,97,100/- was received and
needless to say that the same can be duly recovered and for that purpose, custodial
interrogation is not required. To enable recovery of the amount, Investigator is directed to
ask the petitioner to join investigation and in case, still recovery of the amount is not
effected, then Investigator shall proceed to inform the Bank Managers and all the bank
account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.5,97,100/- shall be frozen and steps be taken
to recover the amount of Rs.5,97,100/-. Even after that, petitioner does not cooperate,
then it shall be permissible for the State to file an application for cancellation of bail
before the trial Court who shall be qualified, eligible and competent to cancel the bail.
This order is subject to further condition that petitioner shall not repeat the offence.
Needless to say that petitioner has been granted bail on the limited role attributed to him
and the fact that he only introduced the complainant to the main travel agent who have
taken the money and this Court is considering the receipt of Rs.5,97,100/- and directions
have been issued to recover the same, as such, the bail granted to the petitioner shall not
be considered as a bail on parity to the co-accused.
8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but
this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6811-2025
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to
furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a
Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court
must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
12. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading
this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and
when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the
investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and
shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of
failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During
the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language,
inhuman treatment, etc.
14. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station
arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section
prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above,
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6811-2025
then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added
section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding
the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the
Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
28.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
