208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rehana Khairalia ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 23, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 23, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.143 dated 15.10.2025, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant–Akashdeep Singh, who in his complaint made to the police has alleged that the petitioner (herein), in connivance with co-accused, induced ₹

him for a sum of approximately 30 lakhs on the pretext of sending him abroad to the United Kingdom on an open work permit. The complainant has further alleged that she had transferred the said amount into different bank accounts as instructed by the petitioner and other co-accused. He has further alleged that fake visa documents and an air ticket were sent to him. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It is argued that it is an admitted case of the complainant himself that he has received WhatsApp communications from one Malkit Singh, who is residing in the USA, and in this regard no forensic examination of the devices has been conducted.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while raising arguments in tandem with the reply has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature involving cheating of a huge amount of Rs.30 lakhs. Relevant part of the reply filed by the State reads thus:

“19. That the material collected during inquiry established that the petitioner was the principal negotiator who finalized the immigration arrangement and demanded Rs. 30,00,000/-.

20. That substantial amounts were directly credited into the petitioner's bank account, and she also personally received cash payments in the presence of co-accused.

21. That the petitioner supplied forged visa documents and a forged airline ticket and represented them as genuine, thereby inducing the complainant to travel to Delhi Airport.

The use of multiple names and fabricated credentials demonstrates calculated planning and deliberate deception.

22. That the financial trail and documentary material directly link the petitioner with the acts constituting cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

23. That the dishonest intention existed from inception, as no genuine immigration process had been undertaken and forged documents were supplied to mislead the complainant.

The allegations are supported by documentary evidence, banking transactions and inquiry fin