IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:16.01.2026 Kuldeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. Seeking for the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising out of FIR No.67 dated 22.04.2025, under Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340 and 60 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’, Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Overseas Criminal Investigator’, office of Regional Security Office, U.S. Embassy, New Delhi, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was alleged by the above named complainant that visa agent ‘Deepti’, ‘Lovedeep Singh Sodhi’ and unknown agents were operating in Punjab, and they they were suspected of submitting fraudulent information on the portal of US Embassy. It was further reported that on 07.01.2025 an individual identified himself as ‘Lovepreet Singh’ had applied for non-immigrant visa and submitted a Bachelor of Arts Degree purported to be issued by ‘Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University’, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. According to complainant, during the course of interview with US Consulate officials on 07.01.2025 ‘Lovepreet Singh’ admitted that he had not earned the above mentioned degree from the abovesaid university and that all the documents submitted by him with regard to his educational qualification were forged.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned information formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation when statement of ‘Lovepreet Singh’ was recorded it came on surface that fake educational certificates were procured by him through ‘Kuldeep Singh’ (petitioner herein).

4. Heard.

5. The learned State Counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City-I, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The same be taken on record.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case merely, on the basis of a statement suffered by co-accused. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of crime, and that the statement of co-accused implicating the petitioner is neither credible nor worth reliable. According to learned counsel for the petitioner otherwise also the same is not admissible in evidence.

7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that offence is triable by Magistrate. In view of above mentioned prevailing factors the learned counsel for the petitioner has craved for the benefit of anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that instant case is a case wherein very specific and categorical allegations are there with regard to the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offence. As per learned State counsel, the allegations against the petitioner are that he was instrumental in preparing the false/fake documents with regard to educational qualification of ‘Lovepreet Singh’. As per learned State counsel in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime and in order to unearth the source from where such documents were procured, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

9. In addition to above, the learned Sta