Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PALLVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. Present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.83 dated 24.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 420, 120-B of IPC) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Kathu Nangal, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.
2. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of anticipatory bail in the FIR in question, before this Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 08.10.2025.
3. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, Inderpal Singh, stated that he was introduced to the petitioner through his son-in-law, namely, Vikas, who informed him that his friend – Pargat had also applied for travel to Dubai through the petitioner. The petitioner, who is stated to be working at an immigration office located at Bittu Trade Centre, Behrampur, near Dodwa, introduced the complainant, his son – Jit Pal, and his son-in – law Vikas to a travel agent, namely, Ranjit Singh. At the i
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 immigra....
A second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable only if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated; mere reiteration of previous grounds is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
