JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.02 dated 30.01.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, at Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused, cheated the complainant and her husband for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs, on the pretext of sending them abroad. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner is mere employee of the company ‘Humble Overseas Consultant’ and she is not a partner in the said entity. He argued that the petitioner was neither any beneficiary of the alleged transactions, nor a single penny has been deposited in her account. He argued that the allegations are totally false and frivolous as the petitioner never assured the complainant or her husband to send them abroad. He further argued that mere presence at the office or being in employment of other accused cannot attract criminal liability. He further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in possession of the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as she is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (NRI Court), Jalandhar, vide order dated 17.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner is an active member of an organized group engaged in illegal immigration activities and fraudulent practices. The petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, dishonestly induced the complainant to pay a substantial amount on the false assurance of securing a work permit for the United Kindgom. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. She along with co-accused orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; and to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime. He further submitted that the entire conversation regarding the work visa was with the petitioner only and the amounts and documents were also deposited by the complainant on instructions of petitioner only. To substantiate the said fact, he has produced whatsapp chat of the complainant with the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for t