Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances; where a prima facie case of conspiracy and fraud exists and custodial interrogation is necessary for a thorough investigation, such relief should be denied.

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.154, dated 03.08.2018 registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-50577-2021 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2023 for want of prosecution.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint submitted by complainant – Gurmeet Singh, alleging therein that he had come into contact with accused Kuljeet Singh @ Jeet, who represented to him that he was a permanent resident of USA and allured him by saying that he could get work permit for 02 years for USA issued in his favour. He told the complainant that firstly he would be sent to Jakarta and then to Canada from where, he would manage to arrange to send the complainant to USA. On being so allured, the complainant got issued a labourVisa for one month for Jakarta. He reached there on 07.03.2017. On instructions of Kuljeet Singh, one Bikram Singh had come to receive him at Jakarta Airport, took the passport and other important documents from the complainant. He also took his mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.2 lakhs kept by the complainant for the purpose of conversion. The complainant was assured to be sent to Canada soon. However, thereafter, family members of accused Kuljeet Singh, namely, Ranvir Singh and Gurjit Singh extracted a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the complainant on the pretext of sending him to Canada. The short term Visa of the complainant at Jakarta had expired and then it was after great difficulty that the could take back his passport from the above named Bikram Singh and came back to India only after arranging tickets at his own. He asked accused Kuljeet Singh to give back his money but in vain. He also came to know that the actual name of accused Bikram Singh, who had taken his passport, documents and cash amount of Rs.2 lakhs was Gurpal Singh i.e. the present petitioner. As such, he prayed for taking action against the culprits.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. The accused Kuljeet Singh was arrested on 18.03.2023. One other person, namely, Gurjit Singh, who was nominated as an additional accused had also been arrested. Both Gurjit Singh and Kuljit Singh faced trial and have since been convicted. The petitioner could not be arrested till the presentation of challan as against the co-accused.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR neither any allegation had been levelled against him. He was subsequently nominated on the ground that he was also known by the name of Bikram Singh and had taken money and passport etc. of the complainant in Jakarta. It is submitted that he had no role to play in the entire occurrence. He is not known with the name of Bikram Singh and his only name is Gurpal Singh. After dismissal of his anticipatory bail filed before the Sessions Court, he was informed by his counsel that only Kuljeet Singh was arraigned as accused and he was exonerated and that is why he did not pursue his application for anticipatory bail. He is ready to join the proceedings now. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued