Jaswant Kaur & another vs State of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the document annexed with the same is ordered to be taken on record as Annexures A-1 to A-10 respectively.

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the document annexed with the same is ordered to be taken on record as Annexure R-2/4.

The instant petition has been filed under Section Section 482 of the BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case arising out of FIR No.126, dated 23.07.2025, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by complainant – Jaskaran Singh on the allegations that marriage of his son Gurkamal Singh was solemnized with accused Cherry, who is daughter of the present petitioners on 17.11.2019. It was agreed that Cherry, who had cleared IELTS examination would go to Canada on study visa and her entire expenses would be incurred by the complainant. Accused Cherry had gone to Canada on study visa. She had completed her studies and secured work visa in the year 2021. She was supposed to sponsor her husband on spouse visa but she kept on extracting money from the complainant and did not do the needful. The son of the complainant was able to go to Canada only in February, 2023, after a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was given to his wife. The complainant had incurred all the expenses for sending his daughter-in-law abroad as well as for providing her fee, accommodation etc. After reaching Canada, his son tried to contact her but she avoided even attending his calls and refused to reside with him. The petitioners and accused Cherry refused to return the money spent by the complainant. By alleging that wrongful loss of money had been caused to the complainant by the petitioners and co-accused Cherry and he had been cheated by them, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners jointly moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 19.08.2025.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of offences of forgery and cheating are not at all attracted qua them. The marriage of their daughter had taken place in the year 2019 and the FIR has been registered in the year 2025 i.e. after a gap of 06 years. This delay has not been explained. Infact, the son of the complainant had gone to Canada in February, 2023. His behaviour towards his wife was quite abusive. Due to their matrimonial discord, a petition for divorce had been filed by the son of the complainant and a decree of divorce had been granted. He is a permanent resident of Canada. No money was given by the complainant to the petitioners. Any money spent by the complainant for the purpose of studies and residence of his daughter-in-law, did not amount to entrustment of any money to the petitioners. The petitioners had never induced the complainant to spend any such money. They are ready to join the investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from the,m. With these broad submissions, it is urged that they deserve to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. An amount of Rs.8 lakhs had been transferred to the joint bank account of the petitioners for the purpose of incurring expenses on studies, accommodation etc. of the daughter of the petitioners when she had gone to Canada. The intention of the petitioners and their daughter was dishonest since the very beginning and after settlement of the accused Cherry in Canada, she avoided calling her husband with an intent to deceive the complainant and his son. The amount of Rs.8 lakhs was dishonestly misappropriated by the petitioners. For the recovery of the same, their custodial interrogation is required. It is, therefore, stressed that petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners along with their daughter Cherry are alleged to have caused wrongful loss of money to the complainants by inducing him to spent the same for the purpose of sending accused Cherry abroad on study visa, on the promise that she would call her husband abroad and would get him settled there. It has come on record and it was not denied during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners that some amount of money was transferred by the complainant in the joint bank account of the petitioners as on 29.08.2019, obviously for the purpose of utilizing the same for sending the daughter of the petitioners, who was also daughter-in-law of the complainant to Canada. However, the money so spent, cannot be presumed to be entrusted to the petitioners and the allegations also do not make out any case that the same has been criminally misappropriated with some dishonest intention. Rather the same was undisputedly utilized for the purpose of incurring expenses for availing study visa as well as accommodation etc. of the daughter-in-law of the complainant. The FIR in this case has been lodged after a gap of 06 years from the marriage of the son of the complainant apparently after a decree of divorce was passed between accused Cherry and son of the complainant. On the basis of these allegations, it is a question of consideration as to whether the ingredients of offence of cheating are also attracted or not and such question has to be answered only after thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial and not at this stage. Taking into consideration the circumstances peculiar to this case, in the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. As such, a case is made out in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to the condition that they shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 20 days from today and shall join the investigation. They shall also join investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating/ Arresting Officer shall release the petitioners on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS.

It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case.

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