High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 0045

Khushpreet Kaur @ Khushi vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-46317-2026 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 882 words

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.0005 dated 30.07.2026, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 24 Emigration Act, Police Station NRI at District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 19.08.2026, following order was passed:-

"This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.5 dated 30.07.2026, Police Station NRI at District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 143, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 24 of Emigration Act.

2.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Eknoor Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he wanted to settle in USA and in that scenario, he came in contact of 'Prabhjot Singh' (the co-accused) in 2024. According to complainant, 'Prabhjot Singh' was running an immigration office under the name and style of 'Apply and Fly' at Jalandhar and he assured that he would arrange a visa for USA for the complainant against a sum of Rs.45 lacs. As per complainant, pursuant to abovementioned deal, he paid Rs.15 lacs, but instead of sending him to USA, visa was arranged for 'Dubai'. According to complainant, thereafter he was sent to 'Guyana' and his passport was snatched there. The complainant further alleged that when he was in 'Guyana', he was threatened and intimidated and under such threat, Rs.30 lacs was extracted from the family members of the complainant.

3.

It is case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6.

Heard.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i.

that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii.

that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years;

iii.

that being a female the petitioner deserves a considerate view;

iv.

that dispute between the parties seems to a dispute of civil nature, i.e. with regard to recovery of money;

v.

that there is nothing on record to show that at the time of initial contract between the parties, there was any mala fide intention to cheat the complainant;

vi.

that no role has been attributed to the petitioner, either with regard to settlement of deal, or with regard to payment of money;

vii.

that the entire evidence to be collected by the Investigating Agency in the present case is documentary in nature;

viii.

that investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

ix.

that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

x.

that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

xi.

that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

xii.

that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

9.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to interim pre-arrest bail.

10.

Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim pre-arrest bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon him, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023

11.

List on 01.09.2026.

12.

Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date.

13.

To be shown in urgent list."

3.

Status report by way of affidavit of Rashminder Singh, PPS, DSP, NRI Wing, Sub Division Jalandhar-1 has been filed by State of Punjab, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel concedes that petitioner joined investigation pursuant to order of the Court, however, he opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery has been recovered.

4.

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 19.08.2026, petitioner has joined investigation. Benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be denied for the reason that no recovery has been effected. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and order dated 19.08.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

5.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.