The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal prosecution should not be used as a means for the recovery of money, especially in cases involving illegal activities such as immigration fraud.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.(Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 142 dated 29.05.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal.

2. As per the FIR which has been annexed as Annexure P-l with the present case, a complaint was filed by the complainant namely, Tarandep Singh son of Baghel Singh by stating that he is 12 pass and qualified in IELTS from Karnal and obtained Five and Half Band. His father contacted with his friend namely, Waryam Singh for sending him abroad and the said Waryam Singh told his father about an agent namely, Amandeep (petitioner) resident of Zirakpur, Punjab and discussion was held by the agent with his father and asked about Rs.22 lakh for sending abroad at America. On 28.12.2018 the complainant came to the petitioner along with the documents and the petitioner took him to Patiala to an agent namely, Raja Gill. There the aforesaid Raja Gill took passport and there he contacted with the relatives of Raja Gill from Patiala. Petitioner went to Ecuador and stayed there for 20 days and the ticket which was sent to him was by Raja Gill from Ecuador to Mexico and thereafter, he left for Mexico. After his arrival at Mexico one person namely, Axcell met the petitioner to show him the photo and took him to hospital where he stayed for three days and his passport and money was taken by the aforesaid Axcell from him. Thereafter, he took the petitioner to a hotel and there 15-20 young men were there from Punjab and asked him to stay here and provided ration to them. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to call his family members so that Rs.22 lakhs be given to Raja Gill. After the clearance of payment, he was told that he would be sent further. It is further stated in the FIR that the father of the petitioner paid Rs.22 lakhs to Raja Gill and thereafter, he was sent to America on 19.02.2019. On 21.02.2019 he was got crossed the border of America by wall through Mascali at about 8:00 PM. He was told that he should go towards right hand side and one young man will meet there who will take him to California. After scaling the wall and walking for about two hours he was nabbed by the police and after interrogation by the American police he was sent to jail. He was kept at Clasico Camp for 16 days and after that he was sent to MISSICP Camp. There his statement was recorded and passport was demanded from him and he explained the entire story thereafter, he was detained in that jail for about two months and then he was taken to Richwarld to produce before judge. On 15.08.2019 internet was not functioning so the date fixed was 19.09.2019 and the judge asked him to present his identity documents of India which he could not present and therefore the case was closed and he was told that if he wants to get arrange his identity documents then he may file his appeal. Thereafter, he was shifted to Ola City jail and on 13.01.2020 he was informed that his documents were found correct and very soon he will be repatriated to India. On 20.02.2020 (wrongly typed as 20.12.2020) passport was prepared by Indian Embassy which was received by him on 06.03.2020 for returning to India. Thereafter, because of the Corona Pandemic his flight was cancelled and on 18.05.2020 he was sent back to India by flight and on 19.05.2020 he landed at Amritsar, Punjab. Thereafter, the Haryana Police took him to Panchkula and after coming there he has not met anyone and even he has no mobile number of Raja Gill. It is further stated in the FIR that father of the complainant had given Rs. 22 lakh to agent Amandeep (petitioner), who has committed cheating with them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Opening up his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been labeled as a