IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101/2 CRM-35448-2024 in/and CRA-D-1214-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 12.02.2026 Balwant @ Bobby Kataria ... Appellant Versus National Investigation Agency ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Special Prosecutor for the respondent/NIA.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CRM-35448-2024

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CRA-D-1214-2024 (O&M)

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Haryana at Panchkula whereby his bail application in FIR No.104 dated 27.05.2024, registered under Sections 323, 342, 346, 370, 420, 506 & 120-B IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Emigration Act, re-registered as RC- 07/2024/NIA/DLI under the Sections 323, 342, 346, 364, 370, 420, 506 & 120-B IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Emigration Act at Police Station NIA, New Delhi, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is alleged that the appellant, in connivance with the co-accused, had taken money from various persons on the false pretext of providing them jobs abroad. He, however, submits that these persons had willingly approached the appellant and paid him the money for his services. The appellant had made every effort to send them abroad and they had stayed there for sometime but as they did not like the working conditions, they had returned on their own. He further submits that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the appellant is willing to deposit the entire money amounting to Rs.19,67,000/- as alleged to have been received from those persons, in the form of a demand draft before the trial Court within two days from now. He further submits that the appellant has been in custody as an under trial for over 01 year and 08 months and has been acquitted in all other cases registered against him.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/NIA, upon instructions from DSP Naveen Chandra, submits that the allegations against the appellant are very serious and several witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, the appellant should not be released on bail at this stage. He further submits that it is alleged by one of the victims that he had paid money to the appellant on the pretext that he will be sent to work in UAE but instead he was sent to Laos. Another victim was falsely promised that he will be getting a job in Singapore. He also submits that only 23 out of 73 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

4. Heard.

5. The allegations against the appellant are that he had taken money from several persons on the pretext of sending them abroad. Although these persons had been sent abroad but not to places of their choice. The appellant is in custody as an under-trial for over 01 year & 08 months and there is no pending case against him. He has undertaken to return the amount taken from the victims. Only 23 out of 73 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to take a long time, we, therefore, deem it appropriate to allow the appeal.

6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate and depositing the demand draft for the aforenoted amount in the Special Court (NIA), Panchkula within two days from now. The Special Court (NIA), Panchkula shall be at liberty to disburse the amount to the claimants in accordance with law after due verification.

7. It is made clear that the appellant shall not contact any of the witnesses and shall not make any effort whatsoever to influence them.

8. Needless to mention tha