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) 80104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ISHA DHINGRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CRM-M_27478_2026



##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-1- (cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

102

CRM-M-27478-2026

Decided on: 15.05.2026

ISHA DHINGRA …...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present: Mr. Jangjit Singh Dahiya, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short -

‘the BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.148 dated

05.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 34,

120-B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short – ‘the IPC’) and

Section 24 of the Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Sector

13-17, Panipat.

2. On 05.06.2020, complainant Gurmeet Singh made a police

complaint that in April 2019, the present petitioner allured the

complainant via Facebook that the petitioner is instrumental in sending

people to Canada and she along with co-accused, namely, Aakash is in

the business of sending people abroad. Believing the petitioner, the

complainant paid an amount of Rs.15 lakh to the petitioner and co-

accused Arun Dhingra. Thereafter, visa and air tickets were given to the

complainant which were found to be forged.

SONIA PURI

2026.05.30 09:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-2- (cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner has been falsely involved in this case, as she is merely a

salaried employee in the office of accused, namely, Akash and Sameer. It

is further submitted that a compromise has been effected with the

complainant and that the complainant has no objection in case the

petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr.

DAG, Haryana, put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of

respondent-State and opposed the grant of concession of anticipatory bail

to the petitioner while submitting that there are serious allegations of

forgery qua the present petitioner; that a visa was given to the

complainant, which, during investigation has been found to be forged and

fabricated and after due verification from the competent authorities. It is

further contended that the petitioner has played an effective role in the

commission of alleged offence and she actively remained in contact with

the complainant and also received an amount of Rs.5 lakh in her bank

account, and as such, the contentions raised by learned counsel by the

petitioner that she is merely an employee of the travel agency is not

sustainable; she is required for custodial interrogation to know the details

of the forged and fabricated document i.e. visa and to unearth other

accomplices having nexus with such racket, whereby, innocent persons

have been allured on the pretext of sending them abroad and, as such,

prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

SONIA PURI

2026.05.30 09:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)-3- (cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

6. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, has put in appearance

by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and admitted

the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and

submitted that he has no objection in case the petitioner is granted the

concession of anticipatory ba

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