203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31827-2025 Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 AMAR IQBAL GILL ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH ....... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0062, dated 15.05.2025, registered at Police Station Sector 39, District Chandigarh (Annexure P- 1), under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 24 of Immigration Act.

2. Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed his Power of Attorney. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

3. The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the police by Ataul Nadaf with the allegations that he applied for obtaining visa for Azerbaijan for five persons through present petitioner who claims to be Proprietor/Director of Immigration Firm namely M/s A.R. Education Consultancy, Chandigarh and a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was paid in the personal account of the accused for obtaining visa, police clearance and medical etc. However, inspite of passage of long time, petitioner has failed to provide them any document relating to his visa, air ticket and appointment letter for job and he has been cheated. During investigation, 15 more persons approached the police whose names have been detailed in para No.3 of the status report furnished by the police and in all, a sum of Rs.30 lakh has been paid to the petitioner by them and he had promised to send these persons aboard and to arrange their visa etc. but neither any visa has been arranged nor he has returned the amount. Petitioner is also not having any license to run this immigration business. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner has already joined the investigation, after Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between him and the complainant and a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid. Nothing is to be recovered from his possession and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the anticipatory bail submitting that petitioner has duped many persons and they have been cheated of a sum of Rs.30 lakh. Petitioner has neither arranged their visa nor sent them abroad and offence in question has been committed in a systematic manner by duping the victims of their hard earned money and petitioner, thus, does not deserve the anticipatory bail.

6. When, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, following order was passed 12.06.2025 and he was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail.

“Learned counsel representing the petitioner inter alia contends that first informant after having entered into a memorandum of understanding on 30.07.2024 upon receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- has lodged a false complaint with the police. He further contends that in fact, the Investigating Agency on 01.03.2025, registered an FIR against the petitioner on the basis of secret information and thereafter, impressing upon the customers of the petitioner to file false complaints.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T.Chandigarh accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

Adjourned to 18.08.2025.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on the interim bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under S