IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15154-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.04.2026 ASHISH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Karan Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P. U.T. Chandigarh and Ms. Sarasmi Budhiraja, Advocate.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-12061-2026 This is an application filed under Rule 3-A(I) Chapter 6 Part B, Vol V of the High Court Rules and Orders for grant of leave to file the present petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed as prayed for. Disposed of.

Main Case

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.114 dated 25.07.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2) BNS at Police Station Sector 17 Central, Chandigarh (U.T.).

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,88,450/- on the pretext of sending him abroad on tourist/work VISA. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the petitioner neither dealt with the complainant nor he had received any money from him. He further argues that the petitioner was not involved in client dealings and it was co-accused namely Smriti @ Maira who was involved in direct dealings with the clients. He further submits that it was the co-accused who received the payments and even transferred Rs.40,000/- into her personal bank account. He further argued that the petitioner has neither committed any embezzlement nor misappropriated any funds as he was working with the company on commission basis and he was not having any power to take payments directly from the clients. He further submits that ownership of the firm does not stand in his name. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive only to harass the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

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, Chandigarh, vide order dated

13.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report and has 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 further argued that the petitioner along with other co- accused cheated the complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad on study/work VISA and as such, he is the main perpetrator of the crime. He submits that the petitioner has been found to be the co-owner of the said firm and was directly involved in its establishment and operations. He submits that the rent agreement executed in May 2024 for the aforesaid premises clearly shows that the petitioner along with co-accused entered into the agreement with the building owner namely Sikander Singh Sahota for running the office of Wish Immigration, thereby establishing his direct connection with the firm. He submits that the petitioner was not merely associated with the firm but was also a direct beneficiary of the cheated amounts and actively involved in the financial transactions relating to the fraud. He further submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner in another FIR was also dismissed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2026 passed in CRM-M- 16900-2026, clearly reflecting that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further argued that the custodial