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.109 dated 16.05.2025 registered under Sections 143, 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act, 2014, at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy and kidnapped the son of the complainant and cheated her for an amount of Rs.18 lakhs, on the pretext of sending her son abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is employed with Sai Overseas Educational Services as Front Desk Officer and later promoted to Head of Department and she has no affiliation with either Atwal Overseas or with travel agents Dheeraj Atwal and Kamal Atwal. He further submits that except the allegation that the petitioner was present at the time of payment, nothing has been produced to substantiate the claim of making payment. 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 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, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 23.06.2025.

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 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 on the pretext of sending her son abroad. He further argued that the petitioner has actively participated in the crime as she was present at the time of making payment of Rs.9 lakhs. 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. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against her are serious in nature. She is alleged to have cheated and defrauded the complainant on the pretext of sending her son abroad. She was allegedly present at the time of making the payment and actively participated in the crime. The events in entirety indicate towards the existence of a bigger syndicate indulging in dubious immigration activities as a result of which, innocent victims end up being preyed upon by such illusory tactics. The Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre- arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate