CRM-M/39842/2026 of BABY Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026

(206) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-39842-2026

Date of decision :03.09.2026 BABY

... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate (through V.C.) with Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.114 dated 19.06.2026 registered under Sections 318(2), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 417 & 406 IPC) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Jujhar Singh S/o Gurdev Singh and the same reads as under:- “To the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. Subject: Application against Ajaib Singh (Mobile No.7428725378, son of Kabal Singh, resident of Village Panjod, District Hoshiarpur, regarding cheating on the pretext of sending persons abroad. Sir, It is respectfully submitted that I, Jujhar Singh, son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, state as under: That Bhag Chand, son of Naranjan Ram, resident of Village Maiditta, Tehsil Banga, is my brother-in-law. He and his family JITESH LAL

had obtained visas for England. As they had to purchase air tickets for travelling abroad, I came into contact with the above-mentioned agent, Ajaib Singh, who represented that he was engaged in the business of sending persons abroad and arranging air tickets, and assured us that he would provide tickets at a cheaper rate. Believing his representations, we agreed to engage his services. The said Ajaib Singh demanded ₹7,80,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand ₹ only). Out of the said amount, I transferred 7,00,000/- from my bank account to the bank account of Ajaib ₹ Singh, while the remaining 80,000/- was transferred by my brother-in-law. Thereafter, he booked the air tickets of Bhag Chand and his family for 27 March. Accordingly, we hired a vehicle to travel to Delhi ₹ Airport, for which the driver charged 16,000/-. However, after we reached the airport, Ajaib Singh informed us over the telephone that his associate was not available at the airport on that day and that the tickets had been refunded. He asked us to return home, and accordingly we returned. Subsequently, he informed us that he would arrange fresh tickets from Mumbai. Acting upon his assurance, my brother-in-law, his family, and two other persons travelled to Mumbai by train. We stayed there from 14 April to 19 April. On 16 April, the scheduled date of departure, Ajaib Singh informed us that his associate had been apprehended and requested us to stay in Mumbai for another two to four days, assuring us that he would again arrange the tickets and that the earlier tickets had already been refunded. Believing his assurance, we continued to stay in a hotel at Mumbai, where we incurred hotel expenses JITESH LAL

₹ of approximately 17,600/-. Thereafter, his mobile phone was switched off. Consequently, my relatives returned from Mumbai to Adampur Airport on 19 April ₹ 2026, and I further incurred approximately 75,500/- towards their return journey. The above-mentioned Ajaib Singh, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, cheated my relatives on the pretext of sending them abroad and arranging air tickets. The entire payment was made by me and Bhag Chand. Copies of my bank account statement and the relevant receipts are enclosed herewith in support of the claim. Owing to the failure of Ajaib Singh to provide the air tickets within time, the visas of the entire family have also been cancelled, for which Ajaib Singh alone is responsible. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that appropriate legal action be taken against the above-mentioned Ajaib Singh, justice be done to me, and the amount due to us, along with applicable interest, be recovered and refunded to us. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Jujhar Singh.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, her bank account has been misused. No allegation has been leveled against her in the FIR. As she is a lady and is ready and willing to join investigation, she is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that ₹ ₹ Ajaib Singh received a sum of 7,80,000/-, out of which 1,80,000/- was paid to the petitioner through UPI of mobile No.6284087224 belonging to the petitioner. The accused neither arranged the promised travel nor JITESH LAL

refunded the amount. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation which is ongoing, the same is required to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required. Therefore, she is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other JITESH LAL

words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The relevant extract of the short reply dated 05.08.2026 of the State is as under:- JITESH LAL

“7. That it is submitted that the present case was registered against the petitioner and co-accused Ajaib Singh after an inquiry conducted by the DSP Crime against Woman and Children Hoshiarpur. The petitioner and co-accused Ajaib Singh induced the complainant and his relatives on the false promise of arranging foreign travel and air tickets at concessional rates. Believing their representations, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.7,80,000/- to them. Out of Rs. 7,80,000/-, Rs.1,80,000 (Rs 50,000 on 10.03.2026, Rs.50,000 on 02.04.2026 and Rs.30,000/- on 17.03.2026) was paid to the petitioner through UPI of Mobile No. 6284087224 of the petitioner. After receiving the money, the petitioner and co-accused Ajaib Singh repeatedly gave false assurances, made Bhag Chand relative of complainant and his family members travel to Delhi and Mumbai, and they give them forged and fabricated Air Tickets from Delhi to England and from Mumbai to England, thereafter neither arranged the promised travel nor refunded the amount, thereby they have committed fraud of Rs.7,80,000/- with them. The investigation is still in progress. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to ascertain the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons, identify the role of each participant, verify financial transactions, recover the cheated amount, identify other victims, and collect electronic as well as documentary evidence. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to prejudice the investigation. The petitioner and co-accused Ajaib Singh have committed serious offences and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. That during the investigation, the role of the present petitioner surfaced. The investigation indicates that the JITESH LAL

petitioner was not an innocent bystander but was connected with the transaction and her involvement is required to be thoroughly investigated. The plea of false implication is a matter of evidence and cannot be accepted at the stage of anticipatory bail.”

8. A perusal of the material on record would reveal that a sum ₹ of 1,80,000/- has been paid to the petitioner through UPI. There is absolutely no explanation coming forth as to why the petitioner has received money on behalf of Ajaib Singh. No explanation has been furnished even during the course of arguments regarding the same. Prima facie, the offence stands established against the petitioner as well. As the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary.

9. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

10. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 03.09.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL