207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 Manpreet Kaur @ Muskan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab -.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

This is first petition under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 174 dated 20.08.2024, registered under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

Status report by way of affidavit of Harjinder Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Ludhiana on behalf of respondent no.1 has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record.

The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Rajni Bala, who alleged that the petitioner–accused induced her to go to England on a 5-year work permit visa and, on that pretext, obtained ₹

a total sum of 1,12,500/-. It is alleged that the accused first collected copies of the complainant’s passport, Aadhaar card, photographs and ₹

Cyprus visa on 22.06.2023. Thereafter, she received 25,000/- on ₹ ₹

23.06.2023, 25,000/- on 24.06.2023, 50,000/- on 30.06.2023 and ₹

12,500/- on 06.07.2023 through Google Pay. The accused also got the medical examination of the complainant conducted at a healthcare diagnostic lab.

However, subsequently, the accused allegedly stopped responding to the complainant’s calls and neither arranged the promised visa nor returned the money, thereby allegedly cheating her. It is further the case of the prosecution that five other FIRs of similar nature are already registered against the petitioner at different police stations in Ludhiana, pertaining to allegations of immigration-related cheating.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that no offence is made out against her. It is argued that the allegations are exaggerated and have been levelled only with a view to pressurize the petitioner. The petitioner is not engaged in any immigration business and, in fact, it is her husband, who is running such business. The petitioner is alleged to have received the amount only on behalf of her husband and had no independent role in the alleged transaction.

It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted, as there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction. At best, the dispute is of a civil nature arising out of non-fulfilment of an alleged promise regarding visa processing. It is also contended that the allegations are based upon documentary evidence and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner; therefore, her custodial interrogation is not required.

Learned counsel has further argued that out of the total ₹

alleged amount of 1,12,500/-, the petitioner has already paid ₹

1,00,000/- to the complainant, which shows her bona fides and negates any dishonest intention. It is also contended that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender in any case and is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

On these grounds, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present anticipatory bail application and submitted that serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner projected herself as competent to arrange a five-year work permit visa for England and induced the complainant, Rajni Bala, to part with a substantial amount of ₹

1,12,500/- through digital transactions on different dates. The entire payment trail, as per the investigation, stands credited into the account of the petitio