IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

106 CRM-M-7851-2026 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 11.02.2026 LOVEPREET SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Davinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner with regard to FIR No.67 dated 22.04.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340, and 60 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar. The abovesaid FIR 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 were suspected of submitting fraudulent information on the portal of US Embassy. It was further reported that on 07.01.2025 an individual, identifying himself as ‘Lovepreet Singh’ (petitioner herein), 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.

2. According to complainant, during the course of interview with US Consulate officials on 07.01.2025 ‘Lovepreet Singh’ (petitioner herein) admitted that he had not earned the abovementioned degree from the abovesaid university and that all the documents submitted by him with regard to his educational qualification were forged/fake.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned 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’ (petitioner herein) was recorded, it came on surface that fake educational certificates were procured by him through ‘Kuldeep Singh’.

4. Notice of motion

5. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6. Heard.

7. 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. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the abovementioned accused persons in connivance with each other had prepared forged documents pertaining to the petitioner’s educational qualification, without his knowledge.

8. 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 the Court of Judicial Magistrate. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors the learned counsel for the petitioner has craved for the benefit of anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that instant case very specific and categorical allegations qua the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offence have been levelled and that if the fraud would have been successful the petitioner would have been the only beneficiary of the same. 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.

10. In addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also argued that the instant case is not an ordinary case wherein usual parameters meant for anticipatory bail should be applied. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case the fraud was played with the foreign embassy and the fraud played by the petitioner is going to have a telling effect on all the