CRM-M/22489/2026 of HARJINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 28 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 28.07.2026

HARJINDER SINGH

....Petitioner

V/s

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

.…Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. B.S. Ladwal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel),

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Charnjit Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.77, dated 18.03.2026 under Section 318 (4) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda.

2. On a complaint submitted by one Gurpiar Singh, the instant FIR was registered. The essence of the allegations is that the complainant had been assured that he would be sent to Maldives by one ‘B Safe Recruiters and Career Consultants Private Limited’, whose Director is the present petitioner Harjinder Singh. The complainant was assured that a visa for Australia, Hungary or Slovakia would be procured for him. A deal was struck for Rs.5 lakhs. A sum of Rs.3.30 lakhs was paid by the complainant. MANI KUMAR

A false appointment letter was thereafter shown to the complainant by the accused pertaining to some employment in Slovakia. He was thereafter informed that the earlier visa had been cancelled and a fresh visa for Hungary had been secured. However, the said visa was also not approved. Two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each were issued by the accused assuring the complainant to return the amount paid to him. However, the payment was stopped. It was also alleged that a number of other persons had been similarly defrauded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that though a compromise had been arrived at before the Economic Offences Wing, the same was done under pressure. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for the grant of pre-arrest bail, stating that the petitioner had duly agreed before the Economic Offences Wing that he had taken the amount from the complainant and that he would return the same but thereafter he backed out. He submits that before this Court also, a similar statement had been given by learned counsel for the petitioner but the petitioner has backed out from the same as well.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he charged a sum of Rs.3.30 lakhs from the complainant with a promise to send him abroad which could not materialize. When the matter was reported to the police, the MANI KUMAR

petitioner undertook to repay the amount which, in a way, prima facie shows that the allegations are correct. The argument that the statement was given under pressure is not acceptable.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the afore-stated facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation would be imperative to elicit the truth.

8. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

10. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 28, 2026 Mani Kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MANI KUMAR