JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

CRM-316-2026

This application has been filed for placing on record the reply on behalf of the complainant along with Annexure R-1.

Application is allowed, as prayed for and the reply as well as the Annexure R-1 are ordered to be taken on record.

Main Case

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.239 dated 17.11.2025 registered under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 10/24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.41 lakhs on the pretext of sending him abroad. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the present FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of more than 07 months, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He submits that the firm Visa Scout Immigration was shut in the year 2023 and therefore, the same was not in existence at the time of registration of the FIR. He argued that the petitioner and the complainant were friends and some petty bank transactions were done on account of their personal relations which were not intended for facilitating immigration. He submits that earlier, the petitioner was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 26.11.2025 but later on, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 02.12.2025. He further argued that the complainant himself had gone to America by adopting a route of his own choice and the petitioner has no concern with the route adopted by the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner has neither concealed anything nor has provided any forged document to the complainant. Thus, false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has been deported from USA and present FIR is filed only to extort money from the petitioner. He further submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate only. No recovery is to be effected 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.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 02.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, has 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 and has cheated and defrauded the complainant for a sum of Rs.41,00,000/-. He further argued that during investigation, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement that he has partnership with co-accused Hardeep Singh, thereby admitting that he was active partner in Visa Scout Immigration. In his disclosure statement, the petitioner admitted his involvement in the crime and also admitted that he will return the amount of Rs.41 lakhs to the complainant. He further submits 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 effect recovery of 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 c