CRM-M-21455-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21455-2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Sonia ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Keshav Chadha, Advocate for the pe oner (Through VC). Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate for the complainant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe on filed under Sec on 482 of the Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe oner seeks grant of an cipatory bail in FIR No.176 dated 11.11.2025 registered under Sec ons 406 and 420 IPC at Police Sta on Division No.7, Jalandhar. 2. Status report has been filed. Same is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel submits that the pe oner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the complainant was well acquainted with the pe oner and her family as they were residing as tenants in his house. According to learned counsel, the husband of the pe oner is residing in Canada and used to send money to the pe oner through the complainant, who allegedly carried on financial transac ons and money transfer ac vi es. It is contended that the amounts exchanged between the par es were part of personal financial dealings and not towards sending the complainant's son abroad. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery remains to be effected from the pe oner, she is ready to join YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [2] inves ga on and, therefore, custodial interroga on is not required. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the pe on and submits that specific allega ons have been levelled against the pe oner regarding inducement of the complainant and receipt of substan al amounts on the false promise of facilita ng immigra on of the complainant's son to Canada. It is argued that the pe oner ac vely par cipated in the transac on, received money from the complainant and remained in constant coordina on with her husband, who is presently residing abroad and has not yet been apprehended. Learned State counsel further submits that custodial interroga on is necessary to trace the money trail, iden fy the role of all conspirators and effect recovery of the cheated amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par es and perused the record.

6. The allega ons in the FIR reveal that the complainant came into contact with the pe oner and her family while they were residing in his premises as tenants. It is alleged that the pe oner, her mother and other family members represented that the pe oner's husband, being a permanent resident of Canada, could arrange immigra on of the complainant's son. Ac ng upon such representa on, the complainant allegedly paid various amounts from me to me, aggrega ng approximately ₹19,00,000/-, to the pe oner and her associates. It is further alleged that forged or fabricated receipts showing deposit of immigra on fees were subsequently sent to the complainant in order to maintain the decep on. Ul mately, neither was the complainant's son sent abroad nor was the amount returned. 7. At this stage, the allega ons cannot be said to be vague or YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [3] omnibus in nature. Rather, the pe oner has been specifically named in the FIR and a direct role has been aFributed to her regarding receipt of money from the complainant and par cipa on in the alleged scheme. Whether the transac ons were genuine financial dealings, as sought to be projected by the pe oner, or were part of a fraudulent design is a maFer to be inves gated and subsequently adjudicated upon during trial.

8. The conten on that the case is based on documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interroga on is unnecessary, does not merit acceptance. Inves ga on in offences involving chea ng and immigra on fraud is not confined merely to collec on of documents. The inves ga ng agency is required to ascertain the complete chain of events, trace the flow of money, iden fy the beneficiaries of the funds, verify the authen city of the documents allegedly supplied to the complainant and determine the role of each par cipant in the conspiracy. Such inves ga on may legi mately require custodial interroga on, par cularly when one of the principal accused, namely the pe oner's husband, is stated to be residing abroad and remains beyond the immediate reach of the inves ga ng agency. 9. The allega ons also disclose commission of an organised economic offence whereby the aspira ons of persons desirous of seFling abroad are allegedly exploited for unlawful gain. Such offences not only result in financial loss to individual vic ms but also undermine public confidence in lawful immigra on processes. Economic offences involving chea ng and misappropria on of substan al amounts stand on a different foo ng and require a thorough inves ga on. 10. The plea that the pe oner is ready to join inves ga on is, by itself, not sufficient to en tle her to the extraordinary discre onary relief of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [4]

an cipatory bail. The Court is required to balance the individual's liberty with the societal interest in a fair and effec ve inves ga on. Where the material collected during inves ga on prima facie indicates ac ve involvement of the accused and recovery as well as tracing of funds are yet to be completed, grant of an cipatory bail may seriously prejudice the inves ga on. 11. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allega ons, the specific role aFributed to the pe oner, the amount involved, the requirement of tracing the money trail and the necessity of custodial interroga on for a complete and effec ve inves ga on, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of an cipatory bail. 12. Consequently, the present pe on is dismissed. 13. However, anything observed herein shall be construed only for the purpose of deciding the present pe on and shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case during inves ga on or trial. 17.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21455-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21455-2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Sonia ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Keshav Chadha, Advocate for the pe oner (Through VC). Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate for the complainant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe on filed under Sec on 482 of the Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe oner seeks grant of an cipatory bail in FIR No.176 dated 11.11.2025 registered under Sec ons 406 and 420 IPC at Police Sta on Division No.7, Jalandhar. 2. Status report has been filed. Same is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel submits that the pe oner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the complainant was well acquainted with the pe oner and her family as they were residing as tenants in his house. According to learned counsel, the husband of the pe oner is residing in Canada and used to send money to the pe oner through the complainant, who allegedly carried on financial transac ons and money transfer ac vi es. It is contended that the amounts exchanged between the par es were part of personal financial dealings and not towards sending the complainant's son abroad. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery remains to be effected from the pe oner, she is ready to join YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [2] inves ga on and, therefore, custodial interroga on is not required. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the pe on and submits that specific allega ons have been levelled against the pe oner regarding inducement of the complainant and receipt of substan al amounts on the false promise of facilita ng immigra on of the complainant's son to Canada. It is argued that the pe oner ac vely par cipated in the transac on, received money from the complainant and remained in constant coordina on with her husband, who is presently residing abroad and has not yet been apprehended. Learned State counsel further submits that custodial interroga on is necessary to trace the money trail, iden fy the role of all conspirators and effect recovery of the cheated amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par es and perused the record.

6. The allega ons in the FIR reveal that the complainant came into contact with the pe oner and her family while they were residing in his premises as tenants. It is alleged that the pe oner, her mother and other family members represented that the pe oner's husband, being a permanent resident of Canada, could arrange immigra on of the complainant's son. Ac ng upon such representa on, the complainant allegedly paid various amounts from me to me, aggrega ng approximately ₹19,00,000/-, to the pe oner and her associates. It is further alleged that forged or fabricated receipts showing deposit of immigra on fees were subsequently sent to the complainant in order to maintain the decep on. Ul mately, neither was the complainant's son sent abroad nor was the amount returned. 7. At this stage, the allega ons cannot be said to be vague or YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [3] omnibus in nature. Rather, the pe oner has been specifically named in the FIR and a direct role has been aFributed to her regarding receipt of money from the complainant and par cipa on in the alleged scheme. Whether the transac ons were genuine financial dealings, as sought to be projected by the pe oner, or were part of a fraudulent design is a maFer to be inves gated and subsequently adjudicated upon during trial.

8. The conten on that the case is based on documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interroga on is unnecessary, does not merit acceptance. Inves ga on in offences involving chea ng and immigra on fraud is not confined merely to collec on of documents. The inves ga ng agency is required to ascertain the complete chain of events, trace the flow of money, iden fy the beneficiaries of the funds, verify the authen city of the documents allegedly supplied to the complainant and determine the role of each par cipant in the conspiracy. Such inves ga on may legi mately require custodial interroga on, par cularly when one of the principal accused, namely the pe oner's husband, is stated to be residing abroad and remains beyond the immediate reach of the inves ga ng agency. 9. The allega ons also disclose commission of an organised economic offence whereby the aspira ons of persons desirous of seFling abroad are allegedly exploited for unlawful gain. Such offences not only result in financial loss to individual vic ms but also undermine public confidence in lawful immigra on processes. Economic offences involving chea ng and misappropria on of substan al amounts stand on a different foo ng and require a thorough inves ga on. 10. The plea that the pe oner is ready to join inves ga on is, by itself, not sufficient to en tle her to the extraordinary discre onary relief of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21455-2026 [4]

an cipatory bail. The Court is required to balance the individual's liberty with the societal interest in a fair and effec ve inves ga on. Where the material collected during inves ga on prima facie indicates ac ve involvement of the accused and recovery as well as tracing of funds are yet to be completed, grant of an cipatory bail may seriously prejudice the inves ga on. 11. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allega ons, the specific role aFributed to the pe oner, the amount involved, the requirement of tracing the money trail and the necessity of custodial interroga on for a complete and effec ve inves ga on, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of an cipatory bail. 12. Consequently, the present pe on is dismissed. 13. However, anything observed herein shall be construed only for the purpose of deciding the present pe on and shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case during inves ga on or trial. 17.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document