SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KAMALJEET SINGH MRAR ALIAS KAMALJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 16.02.2026 Kamaljeet Singh Mrar @ Kamaljit Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. R.D.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.94 dated 02.09.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of Gurmeet Singh. It was alleged that his daughter-in-law, namely, Simarpreet Kaur was interested to go to England. Therefore, she inquired about the immigrant agents and found about Kamaljit Singh (petitioner) resident of village Golewala, who is doing the business of immigration. Kamaljit Singh assured his daughter-in-law that he will send her abroad and thereafter, she alongwith her parents went to said Kamaljit Singh in his house at village Golewala and in this regard, he demanded Rs.22,00,000/- from them for the purpose of providing the study Visa for England. Kamaljit Singh had taken the original documents of his daughter-in-law. After one week, accused Kamaljit Singh demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.22,00,000/- from them by stating that he has to apply for the Visa and thereafter, they have paid the entire amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to accused Kamaljit Singh on different dates. Some of the amount has been paid in cash and some amount has been transferred through his bank account, Branch Ajitwal. He has transferred the said amount in the account of accused Kamaljit Singh and his mother Manpreet Kaur. Accused Kamaljit Singh had taken the time of about two years for applying the visa of his daughter-in-law. On 16.08.2024, accused Kamaljit Singh made a call to Ramandeep Singh, son of the complainant and told to go to an agent at Future Builders, Patiala. Therefore, they went to the said office of Future Builder, Patiala who assured them that visa will be arriving very soon. On 26.12.2024, they received a phone call from Patiala that Visa of Simarpreet Kaur has been issued and for the purpose of providing the passport and Visa, Future Builder, Patiala demanded Rs. 18,46,400/-. Thereafter, they had a talk with Kamaljit Singh, who told them to hold the matter for about one week. Thereafter, accused Kamaljit Singh handed over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- by stating that he will return the remaining amount within few days. After few days, Kamaljit Singh handed over a blank cheque to them and his son Ramanpreet Singh filled the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in the said cheque and presented the same for encashment but later on same was dishonoured. In this way, they have obtained the Visa after paying the amount of Rs.18,46,400/- to Future Builders. Thus, the accused Kamalijt Singh and his mother Manpreet Kaur had cheated them for huge amount on the pretext of sending his daughter-in-law to abroad. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga praying for grant of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the side, learned Court declined the same, vide order dated 15.10.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-60020-2025, however, the same was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, while addressing the issue of maintainability of the present petition, has placed reliance upon the judgment in Babu Singh and others vs. The State of UP, 1978 AIR (Supr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top