IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103 CRM-12859-2026 in /&

CRM-M-14896-2026 Kamalpreet Malhotra ....Applicant/Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision:01.04.2026 Date of Uploading : 01.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-12859-2026 Notice of the application in hand be issued to the respondent.

On the strength of advance copy; Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab. Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court deems it fit to recall the order dated 18.03.2026 and the petition is ordered to be restored to its original number/status.

Application stands allowed, accordingly.

CRM-M-14896-2026

1. Present second 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.0198 dated 23.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala.

The first petition bearing CRM-M-347-2026 (Annexure P-5)

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail filed before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.01.2026.

The present petition is the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail which has been preferred by the petitioner on

16.03.2026.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that Kamalpreet Malhotra (petitioner herein) and Ankita allegedly induced the complainant – Karamjeet Singh, on the pretext of facilitating the process of sending his son, namely, Husandeep Singh, abroad. It is alleged that on such inducement, they received a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the complainant. However, neither was any visa arranged or sanctioned for the complainant’s son, nor was the said amount refunded, thereby allegedly cheating the complainant. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. He has further contended that the petitioner was earlier granted interim protection by the concerned Sessions Court, but could not join the investigation due to a communication gap with his counsel, and the subsequent dismissal of bail was on technical grounds and not on merits. Learned counsel has further argued that no specific date/time has been mentioned in the FIR in question in respect of the cheque, which was allegedly given by the complainant. Learned counsel has argued that perusal of the FIR in question nowhere shows any kind of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner.

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 (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has asserted that the petitioner has been specifica