IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 Dilbag Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.59 dated 20.05.2025 registered under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professions (Regulation) Act, 2014 at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner had cheated the complainant, on the pretext of sending her son abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the petitioner is neither beneficiary of the alleged fraud, nor has any concern with the said offence. He argued that the alleged payment was made during the intervening period from 20.07.2022 to 30.01.2023 but the FIR in question was registered on 20.05.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of more than 02 years, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that during inquiry, the complainant had not produced any documentary proof/evidence regarding the cash payment of Rs.4,35,000/- and out of the remaining amount of Rs.11,21,416/-, the petitioner has already returned Rs.5,18,000/- to the complainant. He further argued that the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to insufficient fund and the said cheque does not relate to the present litigation, however, the petitioner is ready to return the cheque amount to the complainant. He further argued that the application of the complainant’s son was rejected by the foreign college without any fault of the petitioner. He further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in possession of the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated

17.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co- accused dishonestly induced the complainant to part with huge amount of money on the false assurance of sending her son abroad. He further argued that the petitioner participated in the fraudulent scheme by representing himself as engaged in immigration work, received huge amount directly in his bank account. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co- accused orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; and to recover the amount involved i