[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navjot Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-20801-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20801-2026 (O&M)
Navjot Singh Brar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 28.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. A. P. S. Deol, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sagarika, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Navinder Jit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail
in case arising out of FIR No. 0054 dated 28.02.2026, registered under
Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC (which corresponds to Sections 318(4),
316(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023) at Police Station Baghapurana, District
Moga.
CRM-M-20801-2026 (O&M) -2-
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by complainant Gurjant Singh Dhaliwal alleging that he
had been duped of a sum of Rs.1,67,08,750/- by the present petitioner, who
was running an immigration business in the name of 'Dream Builders and
Immigration' at Baghapurana, District Moga on the pretext of sending his
family and himself permanently to USA. After registration of the FIR,
investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of
anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga
but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 07.04.2026.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He was in custody in connection with some
other cases when he was implicated as an accused in this case. In fact,
complainant Gurjant Singh Dhaliwal has been known to him for the last
twenty years. There used to be transactions of money between them. In fact,
the complainant and himself were running a study centre and used to send the
students abroad by arranging foreign study visas. Only an amount of Rs.13
lakhs had been transferred from the bank account of the son of the
complainant in the account of petitioner's firm. No other money had been
given to him. The dispute between them is with regard to sharing of business
profits and it has not arisen due to non-arranging family visas as claimed by
the complainant. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial
interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. No
useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. It is, thus,
CRM-M-20801-2026 (O&M) -3-
urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be
given concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned
State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that
there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. The
investigation is underway. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must for
conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter. The petitioner is a
habitual offender, being involved in several other cases. No exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance has been made out in favour of the petitioner for
grant of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the complainant of a huge
amount of money on the pretext of sending his family and himself abroad. The
petitioner is involved in two more cases of similar nature. The allegations
prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against the
petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and
proper investigation in the matter. 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
CRM-M-20801-2026 (O&M) -4-
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. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more
elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a
favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect
while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be
granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is
convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary
remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting
exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are 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.
30.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
