CRM-M/29790/2026 of MUKUL KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 16 July 2026

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 0085 dated 13.06.2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station City 1, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, Punjab. This is the second petition for regular bail. First one was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.01.2026.

2. Case was registered on complaint of Anchit Goyal who alleged that he was doing work of immigration and IELTS since 2008 and worked with different companies for expansion of business. Some time ago, he saw an advertisement for going to Canada without IELTS, on which account he went to Sukhman Kaur wife of Mukul Kumar who told him that they would charge ₹10,00,000/- per student and ₹1,00,000/- in advance for each student. Complainant further alleged he sent 25 cases and transferred ₹25,00,000/- from the account of his friend Kulwinder Singh Himatana. Out of those 25

cases, they procured visa (PPR) of one Amandeep Singh and asked him to deposit ₹10,00,000/- in their account. Complainant deposited ₹7,80,000/- from the account of his wife Deepmala Goyal and ₹2,20,000/- from the account of his friend Samanpreet Singh. He sent his passport for visa stamp but later, they avoided giving the passport. Complainant further claimed that he applied for GCMS Note of Amandeep Singh and learnt that the PPR was fake, on which account Amandeep Singh was banned. He spoke to the petitioner on phone, who assured that he would return the amount of ₹35,00,000/- but transferred only ₹15,00,000/- in his account and the remaining amount of ₹20,00,000/- was due to be paid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was behind bars from 27.01.2025. Complainant in the case was also an immigration agent. There was no complaint of any kind by any victim. Out of the amount received, ₹15,00,000/- had already been returned and the rest was paid through online transfer vide Annexure P-3. It is argued that in view of the nature and allegations, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that there were 10 more FIRs registered against the petitioner on similar allegations. Petitioner was a habitual offender, who was not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 27.01.2025 i.e. for the last 1-1/2 years. Concededly, investigation of the case is complete. Case is triable by the Court of Magistrate, punishable with maximum imprisonment upto 07 years. Conclusion of trial by an early date is not in sight. Petitioner has a right to speedy trial which is being infringed. Out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined so far. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, the involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. Truth of the allegations against the petitioner can be determined only on conclusion of trial. The first petition for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed on 14.01.2026. Thereafter, petitioner has undergone custody of more than 06 months. There is a substantial change in circumstances. Further detention of the petitioner in the case is not warranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without a comment on merits, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

6. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 16.07.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No