Bail is the general rule and jail is the exception. The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, combined with a prima facie civil nature of the dispute and completed investigation, entitles the accused to bail.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.113 dated 07.11.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Ramdass @Rinku’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his son, namely ‘Ravinder Singh’, was working in Italy, where his friend’s son, namely ‘Harjit Singh’, also worked. According to complainant, both of them wanted to work in USA, and therefore, he came in contact of ‘Jassi @Harry’ (the petitioner herein), who assured him that he would arrange visas for both the boys for USA, and demanded Rs.45 lacs. According to complainant, he agreed to pay the abovementioned amount to the petitioner.

The complainant further alleged that Rs.25 lacs, as demanded by the petitioner, was paid to him in advance and rest of the money was supposed to be paid on arrival of both the boys in Mexico. It has been claimed by the complainant that he paid Rs.25 lacs to the petitioner, and that the petitioner initially sent both the boys to Holland, where he demanded 1500 Euros, and thereafter both the boys were sent to ‘Suriname’, wherein they stayed in a hotel for one week, from where they were supposed to travel to ‘Mexico’, but the boys were sent to ‘Jamaica’, where they were detained by the officers and released only on charging of 2500 Dollars.

It was further alleged by the complainant that from ‘Jamaica’, the boys were sent back to ‘Spain’, where they were arrested and detained at the airport for 12 days, and then sent to ‘Suriname’. According to complainant, when they tried to contact the petitioner, he refused to accept their calls and in such distressed condition, they contacted another agent and managed to send their children to USA. As per complainant, the petitioner has cheated them as he failed to fulfill his commitment, and has also refused to return the money.

Notice of motion

appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed. The same be taken on record.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false case has been planted against the petitioner, who has clean antecedents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the story set-out by the complainant is a false story, and that the dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has already served sentence for a period of more than two months, and that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per FIR itself, the son of complainant has already gone to USA, and thus, the only dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is regarding the return of money. While claiming that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that sequ