[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prince Gill vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

                     114


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                     CHANDIGARH


                                                        CRM-M-24243-2026



                     Prince Gill
                                                                                               ....Petitioner
                                                                Versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                                             ....Respondent


                     Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
                     Date of Uploading: 30.04.2026


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL



                     Present:             Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                          Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                                                                *****
                     SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR

No.01 dated 01.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), at

Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he

cheated the complainant of a sum of ₹12,00,000/-, which was paid to the

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-24243-2026 Page |2

petitioner and his co-accused, namely Mehak Sharma (wife of the

petitioner), on the pretext of sending the complainant to the Canada.

However, the complainant was neither sent to the Canada nor was the

amount returned to him. The complainant has further stated that after his

giving application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, the

petitioner had returned ₹75,000/- to him. Thus, the petitioner and his co-

accused failed to send the complainant abroad and and even the remaining

amount of ₹12 lakhs had not been returned to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare

perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the allegations levelled against the

petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of merit. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

It is contended that there were monetary transactions between the parties,

which were of civil nature and later on have been given colour of criminal

case. It is further argued that substantial amounts have already been

returned to the complainant through bank transactions.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should

not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely

necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued

that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the

petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose

would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid

submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by

the petitioner is serious in nature. The complainant had paid amount of

₹12,00,000/- lakhs to the petitioner and his co-accused in order to send him

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-24243-2026 Page |3

to Canada, but the petitioner and his co-accused, instead cheated the

complainant and neither the complainant was sent abroad nor was the

amount returned to him. According to learned State counsel, the offence

committed by the petitioner caused substantial financial and emotional

distress to the victim. Considering the seriousness of the allegations,

custodial interrogation of the petitioner maybe necessary to unearth the

broader conspiracy, identify co-accused and recover the ill-gotten money.

Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that

the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on

bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand

is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations

against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner is specifically

named in the FIR and there are direct/specific allegations regarding

defrauding the complainant to the tune of ₹12,00,000/- lakhs on the pretext

of sending the complainant to Canada, but neither the petitioner and his co-

accused honored their promise nor had returned the money in question.

6.1. The offence in question does not merely involve financial

deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of

human trafficking and cross-border immigration fraud, which are not only

grave in nature but also have far-reaching consequences on public order.

Cases of this nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with false

promises of lawful migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation,

fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and merit strict judicial

scrutiny and deterrence. Human trafficking under the garb of immigration

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-24243-2026 Page |4

consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon the desperation and

dreams of unsuspecting citizens. The Courts must remain vigilant and ensure

that such rackets are not emboldened by leniency at the pre-trial stage. The

fraudulent inducement for illegal migration, followed by subjecting

individuals to inhumane and life-threatening conditions abroad, not only

reflects criminal intent but also constitutes a serious affront to human dignity

and national interest. The Court cannot overlook the broader public interest

involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on

transnational human trafficking. Such offences necessitate a strong and

principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence.

6.2. Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a

disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals

posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens

seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause

severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of

lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such

organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law,

leaving no room for leniency.

6.3. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts,

and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No

cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be

deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present

FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has

categorically stated that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant of a

substantial amount under the false pretext of facilitating his legal migration

to Canada which caused severe financial and emotional distress.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-24243-2026 Page |5

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for

grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding

individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon

with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the

accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide

impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every

person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear

of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that

prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which

has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear establish a

reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment

in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :

1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para

6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-

ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre- arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no

compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the

petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary

for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus,

devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-24243-2026 Page |6

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 30.04.2026 Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No