201 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Mandeep Kumar @ Manna ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Mamrt, Advocate for the complainant.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.189, dated 12.06.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station City District Hoshiarpur.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of a letter bearing No.3175-Lit dated 16.05.2025 received from Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in CRM-M No.23814 of 2025 titled ‘Shammi Kumar and other Vs. State of Punjab and others’ with regard to complaint No.8560-PD dated 28.11.2024 filed by Shammi Kumar against Mandeep Singh @ Manna (petitioner herein), Bimla Devi wife of Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar. It was alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused had committed fraud on the pretext of sending the complainants abroad i.e. Poland and took an amount of Rs.6.00 Lacs for the same. It was further alleged that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused defrauded the complainants and did not send them abroad. Thus, request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 20.09.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that though the petitioner is facing prosecution in 06 more FIRs, however, in 05 of them, either the FIR has been quashed or the petitioner has been acquitted/discharged. He submits that in the present case, vide enquiries dated 22.01.2025 and 13.03.2025, the petitioner has been found to be not guilty. To buttress his arguments, he submits that co-accused of the petitioner in the present case has already been granted interim protection by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.09.2025 in SLP No.12883 of 2025. He thus, submits that there being no prima facie case having been made out against the petitioner, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner and his father are habitual offenders and they have committed cheating with many persons. He submits that the petitioner is facing prosecution in other FIRs as well, in which some of th FIRs got quashed on the basis of compromise. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the enquiry report in which prima facie case has been found to have been made against the petitioner. He thus, submits that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned State counsel has also opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the main accused in the present case. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the status report filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Dev Dutt Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City, District Hoshiarpur and submitted that the enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner has been found to be guilty. He submits that petitioner is