Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 2026
CRM-M-22426-2026 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRM-M-22426-2026
Date of decision :07.05.2026
Date of uploading :07.05.2026
Karanpreet Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46 dated 31.03.2025 under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Division No-A, Amritsar District, Amritsar.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
"In reference to the application No.395860-PGD, dated 29.07.2024 along with Inquiry report received through post at the police station which is as under: "To, Hon'ble SSP, Sahib, Amritsar City. Subject: Application against 2 agent brothers Karanpreet Singh whose Mobile No. is 78140 20717 and Lovepreet Singh whose mobile No. is 96464 32751 and the father of these agents Guriqbal Singh whose mobile is 78147477882, residents of Sultan wind Road, Mandar Wali, Gali No.7, Amritsar for committing cheating of 37 lakh rupees with me and despite submitting applications regarding the same in the office of Commissioner Sahib, Amritsar and Police Station City Division B, Amritsar still date no action has been taken on my applications. Sir, it is requested that I am Parminder Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh, resident of village Nahal, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar and most humbly submits before you that incidentally I came in contact with Guriqbal Singh whose mobile No. is 78147 47882, resident of Amritsar who disclosed to me that his son JATIN 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 2- Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh, resident of Sultan wind Road, Mandar Wali, Gali No.07, Amritsar who are his sons and used to send people abroad and in case anyone of you wanted to go abroad or any of your relative is to be sent abroad then you can talk to them and gave their mobile numbers that is of Karanpreet Singh Mob. No.78140 20717 and Lovepreet Singh Mob. No. 9646432751. That he further stated that in case any person wanted to go abroad then they can talk to them on their mobile phone numbers. My brother Karanjeet Singh son of Harjinder Singh, resident of Wariana, Jalandhar and my sister-in-law Ramanjit Kaur daughter of Joga Singh, resident of village Nahal, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar intended to go abroad and for the same out of them. we talked with Lovepreet Singh on his mobile phone and stated that my brother and my sister- in-law wanted to go abroad and where you can send them abroad and how much money is required for the same and then he stated that he could sent them to New Zealand on recovery visa and to England on work visa and then I informed from him about the expenses per person for sending to New Zealand and then he disclosed that 6,50,000/- rupees per person will be required and for getting the work permit of England he demanded 16 lakh rupees per person from me. I talked to him for sending my brother and my sister-in-law and other relatives to abroad and I deposited their passports and two lakh rupees per person to him. That I paid the said amount to him through Google Pay, the record of which is available with me. I deposited total 16 lakh rupees to him for total 8 persons and thereafter he after giving the forged visas of the said persons demanded the amount from me and thus, in the same manner I transferred 11 lakh rupees through Google Pay to his brother Karanpreet Singh and thereafter, he on pretext of getting the flights booked against demanded money from me and I paid 10 lakh rupees after going to his office at Celebrations Mall, Batala, Road Gagan Colony, Amritsar but he despite receiving 37 lakh rupees have not sent any of my person to England or New Zealand and thus committing cheating of 37 lakh rupees with me. When they committed fraud with me then I made written application firstly to Police Commissioner Amritsar and thereafter to Police Station City Division B, Amritsar but no action was taken on any of my complaint. That the amounts of my relatives which have been paid to both of these brothers by me the said relatives are demanding money back from me and causing harassment to me. That I belongs to a poor family, thus, it is requested to give hearing to my complaint and the amounts paid by me on my relatives be got returned. I shall be very thankful to you. Thanking You, Yours Truly, Sd/- Parminder Kaur, Paraminder Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh, resident of village Nahal, Police Station Lohia Khas, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar Mob. No.62392-58953 and 84276-13578, dated 29/07/2024. That in regard to the aforementioned numbered application it is requested that the report regarding the present application was got received from In charge Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Amritsar through Assistant Commissioner of Police, PBI/ Special Crime, Amritsar along with comments. That as per their report it transpired that the present application has been given by Parminder Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh, resident of village Nahal, Tehsil Shahkot, Jalandhar against Guriqbal Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Karanpreet Singh, resident of House No.L2/774, Gali No.7, New Gurnam Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar Office Visa, World, Overseas, Near Celebration Mall, Amritsar for committing cheating of 3780000/- rupees with her on pretext of sending her relatives and other known persons to abroad UK and New Zealand. That she has requested to take action against them. As per the report of In charge Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Amritsar the inquiry of the application was got firstly conducted by SI Harjinder Singh. That he summoned both the parties to join the inquiry proceedings and issued summons No. 1367-5P, dated 22.08.2024, summons No.1385-5P, dated 23.08.2024, Summon No.1421-5P, Dated 30.08.2024. That on this the application party came present but the opposite party did not come present to join the inquiry proceedings. That they were contacted to join the inquiry proceedings and despite the knowledge deliberately they fail to join the inquiry proceedings and also have not presented their stand. In the inquiry of the application the record was got procured by the inquiry officer. Thereafter, since Inquiry Officer SI Harjinder Singh was got transferred the inquiry was not entrusted of this application to ASI Sukhdial Singh who through phone asked the respondent party to join the inquiry proceedings and repeatedly informed them about the pendency to the inquiry but they did not come present to join the proceedings. During the inquiry proceedings the below mentioned persons were got joined in the inquiry and the inquiry officer procured the records. As per the report of In charge Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Amritsar it transpired that the applicant Parminder Kaur was initially working as Counselors in Dream Overseas Chandigarh Office where she came in contact with Guriqbal Singh named who stated to her that he used to work of immigration along with his sons Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh and he used JATIN to apply for the visas for New Zealand and England and in case she wanted to get the 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 3- work permit of any persons then stated that he used to charge 6,50,000/- rupees of one member for New Zealand and 8 lakh rupees for one member for work permit to UK. That thereafter since applicant Parminder Kaur got married as such she left the shop at Chandigarh. That after sometime applicant Parminder Kaur received call from Lovepreet Singh son of Guriqbal Singh stated that in case she wanted to send anyone to New Zealand or UK then he can get the visa for the same. That the applicant Parminder Kaur fell prey to his talks and fixed the deal with him for 5 of her relatives and other known persons (sister-in-law) Ramanjit Kaur, brother Karanjit Singh) for work permit to New Zealand for Rs.6,50,000/-rupees and for sending Jaswinder Singh, son of her paternal aunt and her known persons Harwinder Singh and his wife Rajwinder Kaur for sending them to UK on work permit for 8 lakh rupees. That thereafter, Lovepreet Singh stated to her that his office. Visa World Overseas is near to Celebration Mall Amritsar and asked her to bring the passports of 5 members and advanced amount of 2 lakh rupees per member and come to his office. That the applicant Parminder. Kaur along with her brother Karanjeet Singh went to their office World Overseas Celebrations Mall Amritsar where Lovepreet Singh and his brother Karanpreet Singh were present. That the applicant Parminder Kaur on the asking of Lovepreet Singh after getting 520000/- rupees in cash from her relatives/other known person paid to him and further Lovepreet Singh from his account No.922010065150302 Axis Bank, Amritsar paid 480000/- rupees through Google Pay and thus in this manner paid total 10 lakh rupees and passports to him which is duly corroborated from the statements of applicant Parminder Kaur and his brother Karanjit Singh. That later on Lovepreet Singh on different dates send the visas and tickets of her sister-in-law Ramanjit Kaur for New Zealand, visa of New Zealand of her brother Karanjit Singh, Visa of UK for Harwinder Singh and his wife Rajwinder Kaur for UK, and air tickets and visa of Jaswinder Kaur For UK to the applicant Parminder Kaur on her WhatsApp. That thereafter as per the statement of the applicant she transferred 2240000/- rupees in the bank account of Lovepreet Singh and 540000/- rupees in the bank account of Karanpreet Singh and 10 lakh rupees were already paid in cash as such both 3780000 rupees have been paid to Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh. That later on the applicant got verified the visas and air tickets of her relatives and found it to be forged. On this the applicant and her relatives and other known persons demanded their money back from Guriqbal Singh, Karanpreet Singh and Lovepreet Singh but they kept on delay delaying the matter. But during the inquiry of the present application by the inquiry officer the accounts of applicant Parminder Kaur, Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh were got verified and it transpired that applicant Parminder Kaur from her UCO Bank account No.23090110081037 through Google pay from her mobile No. 62392-58953 transferred 1818800/- rupees to the mobile No.99156-97751 of Lovepreet Singh in his bank account of Axis Bank bearing account No.922010065150302 and on dated 12.10.2023 deposited 250000/- rupees more in the said account. That the applicant Parminder Kaur deposited 2 lakh rupees in cash in the Punjab National Bank Account No. 19431132000393 on dated 21.05.2023 the account given by Karanpreet Singh and Parminder Kaur transferred 202100 rupees from her mobile No.62392-58953 to the mobile No.78140-20717 of Karanpreet Singh. Thus, in this manner it is found that applicant Parminder Kaur has paid total 2470900/- rupees to Karanpreet Singh and Lovepreet Singh and 10 lakh rupees in cash. Apart from this, one letter No.352- 5E-AHTU, dated 20.09.2024 was got issued to the office of Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner Amritsar for verifying the travel agent license of opposite party Guriqbal Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Karanpreet Singh, residents of House No.L2/772, Gali No.7, New Gurnam Nagar, Sultan wind Road, Amritsar of their Office Visa World Overseas near Celebrations Mall Amritsar. That the reply was got received from the office of Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner in which it is mentioned that no application for grant of license of travel agent in the name of Guriqbal Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Karanpreet Singh, residents of House No. 12/774 Gali No.7, New Gurnam Nagar, Sultan wind Road, Amritsar, Office Visa World, Overseas, Near Celebrations Mall Amritsar, has been received and no licence has been got issued by its office in the name of aforesaid person and firm and further mentioned that till dated 27.10.2024 no license has been issued in their name. As per the report of In charge Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Amritsar the statements have been received against the opposite party Guriqbal Singh, Karanpreet Singh and Lovepreet Singh of receiving 2470900/- rupees in their bank accounts and 10 lakh rupees in cash from applicant Parminder Kaur on pretext of sending brother of applicant Parminder Kaur's brother Karanjit Singh, sister-in-law Ramanjit Kaur, Harwinder Singh his wife Rajwinder Kaur, Jaswinder Singh for sending them to UK and New Zealand on work permit and they in connivance with each other with their pre-hatched conspiracy under the greed of money have committed cheating on JATIN pretext of sending the relatives of applicant abroad and thus, have played with their 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 4- future and committed cheating of total 3470900/- rupees. That as per the report of In charge Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Amritsar it has been recommended to register the case under Sections 420 IPC, 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act, 2014 against Guriqbal Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh, residents of House No. L2/774, Gali No.7, New Gurnam Nagar, Sultan wind Road, Amritsar Office Visa World, Overseas Near Celebrations Mall Amritsar and further stated that apart from this during investigation after verification of the visa from the Embassy and on the basis of the facts transpired during the investigation, the further offences will be enhanced. Inquiry report is being presented and in case it is approved then the directions be issued to the Area Officer for conducting the investigation after registering the case at Police Station A division, Amritsar Sd/ Additional Deputy Commissioner Police, Investigation, Amritsar, dated 11.03.2025. That the aforesaid report was sent by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Investigation Amritsar to the Office of Hon'ble Commissioner of Police Amritsar City. That the Hon'ble Commissioner marked the same to DA Legal Amritsar for getting his opinion and report was sent to the office of DA Legal. That the DA Legal in his report has written "Subject:- In reference to the application No. 395860-PGD, Dated 29/07/2024, in that regard, Sir, I have carefully perused the inquiry report and the documents annexed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Investigation Amritsar and on the basis of the report and as per my legal opinion in this case at this stage the FIR can be got registered under Sections 420, 120 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act, 2014 against Guriqbal Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Karanpreet Singh, in case it is approved. Sd/ District Attorney (legal) Amritsar, dated 27.03.2025, on this Hon'ble Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City written "SHO A Division to register the case and conduct. the investigation. Sd/- Commissioner Police, Amritsar City, dated 29.03.2025. Today at Police Station:- At this time on receipt of above said application along with the inquiry report through post at the police station the above said case and above said sections was got registered and the original application along with the Inquriy report along with copy of FIR is sent to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, East, Amritsar by hand ASI Pragat Singh 2168/Amritsar. Control room is being informed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 08.03.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on the basis of the FIR complainant earlier having a relationship with the brother of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that, upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan has already been presented qua the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated JATIN 06.05.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-22426-2026 5-
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:
"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace JATIN 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 6- by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."
5.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:-
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."
5.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, JATIN upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 7- should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
6. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 04.05.2026. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute before this Court that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 06.05.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 month and 24 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following JATIN 2026.05.07 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22426-2026 8- conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
07.05.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN
2026.05.07 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document