The court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in serious fraud cases to ensure thorough investigation.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of BNSS , 2023 in FIR No.229 dated 03.07.2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Faridkot.

2. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to defrauding the complainant namely Bhupinder Singh, son of Hakam Singh, resident of Fatehgarh Korotana, Tehsil Dharmkot, District Moga, who alleged that his son namely Gurinder Singh had been in contact with accused namely Deepak Sharma, her wife namely Shikha Sharma (petitioner herein) and Arshdeep Singh for about 09 months with regard to IELTS admission. On 10.08.2022, the complainant paid them Rs.15.00 lacs. Later, on 02.05.2023, the complainant gave another Rs.5.00 lacs in cash to the aforesaid accused in front of computer shop of co-accused Arshdeep Singh. The aforesaid accused promised to complete the process by 11.05.2023. However, later on, the phones of the aforesaid accused have been switched off and their office as well as residence has been closed. The complainant has thus, alleged that in this way the aforesaid accused had cheated the complainant for a total sum of Rs.20.00 lacs. On these set of allegations, the present FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR despite having no role or financial involvement in the alleged transactions. No payment was ever made to the petitioner nor did she have any connection with the SBE Visa Immigration Consultant which is solely owned and operated by her estranged husband namely Deepak Sharma. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner and Deepak Sharma have been living separately for a considerable time as reflected in the divorce petition filed by Deepak Sharma on 06.08.2022 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner has been residing with her parents at a different address. Furthermore, there is no specific allegation in the FIR suggesting that the petitioner owns, manages or is associated with SBE Visa Immigration Consultant. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is a homemaker and is taking care of her two minor daughters, one of whom is suffering from a life threatening disease. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner alongwith her daughters has travelled to Dubai on 09.05.2023 on a visitor visa to explore the medical treatment option for her ailing daughter and during her absence the impugned FIR has been registered. Learned counsel has emphasized that the entire transaction and money dealings have solely been between the complainant and Deepak Sharma, who is the proprietor of SBE Visa Immigration Consultant. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she allegedly made a phone call and demanded Rs.5.00 lacs which is false, baseless and unsubstantiated. Learned counsel has pointed out that the co- accused namely Arshdeep Singh has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 in CRM-M- 23058-2024. It has been further argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case she is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel