IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amandeep Singh Brar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 30, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 30, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. G.S. Hayer, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

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.0008, dated 09.01.2021 registered U/S 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act

2014 registered at Police Station Vairo Ke, District Fazilka.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with his co-accused, cheated the complainant and his brother-in-law of a sum of ₹7,37,370/-which was allegedly taken on the pretext of sending the complainant to Australia on work permit as also to his brother-in-law to France. However, neither were the complainant and his brother-in-law sent to Australia and France nor was the entire amount returned to them. Thus, according to the allegations, the petitioner and his co-accused failed to fulfill their promise of sending the complainant and his brother-in-law abroad and also failed to return the amount in question. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of merit. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, on account of some business transactions. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence, as no amount was ever paid to him by the complainant and his brother-in-law.

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 dated 16.03.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Jalalabad, District Fazilka has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Relevant part of the said reply reads thus:

“The petitioner and co-accused after hatching a criminal conspiracy fraudulently received Rs.7,37,370/-from the complainant party but they neither made any arrangement to send the complainant and his associate abroad nor returned the amount and thus they cheated with the complainant. The petitioner received part of the said amount from the complainant party and during the relevant time, there were 232 mobile phone calls between the petitioner-accused and the complainant. The petitioner also forged and fabricated the receipt as explained above, to escape his criminal liability of cheating. The petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime.”

Learned State counsel has, accordingly, asserted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. The complainant-side had paid an amount of ₹7,37,370/- to the petitioner and his co-accused in order to send them abroad, but the petitioner and his co-accused, instead cheated the complainant and his brother-in-law. According to learned State counsel, the offence committed by the petitioner caused substantial financial and emotional distr