IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112 CRM-M-17363-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 01.04.2026 Manjit Kaur & Anr.

..... Petitioners VERSUS Satbeer Singh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sukhmandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral)

This petition for pre-arrest bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of complaint No.COMI-55-2024, dated 28.02.2024 titled as ‘Satbeer Singh V/s Charandeep Singh & Ors.’, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012. The abovementioned complaint is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ferozepur, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners and other co-accused, alleging therein that he was desirous of settling in a foreign country, and that he came into contact with petitioners and their co-accused, who assured him of arranging requisite Visa papers and other documents for emigration to in a foreign country. According to respondent, a deal was struck with the petitioners and other co-accused for a sum of Rs.27 lacs, and out of abovementioned amount, a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- was paid by the respondent for settling in Canada. As per respondent, despite the abovementioned payment, requisite papers were not arranged by the petitioners and their co-accused, and thus he was subjected to a well-planned act of cheating.

3. Notice of motion

4. Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent and filed Memorandum of Appearance. Hence service of notice upon the respondent is hereby dispensed with.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the former petition was dismissed as withdrawn due to some technical grounds, and that at the time of withdrawal of former petition, a liberty was accorded to the petitioners to file fresh petition with better particulars. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case, and therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required by the State, and otherwise also, it is not going to produce any fruitful result.

7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that one of the co-accused, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, namely ‘Charandeep Singh’, has already fled from the country and residing aboard. According to learned counsel for the respondent, if the benefit of pre-arrest bail is accorded to the petitioners, they are also likely to leave the country and thereafter they will not participate in the proceedings.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years;

iii. that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent, thus, their custodial interrogation is not required by the police;

iv. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

v. that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and vi. that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate