Ram Lal @ Ram Pal vs State Of Haryana

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.314 dated 18.06.2025 registered under Sections 120B, 420, 506 of IPC and Section 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Kurukshetra University, District Kurukshetra.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint moved by complainant-Rahul, alleging therein that he was interested to settle abroad and had been given the phone number of accused Pankaj Sharma by his friend saying that he could help him in going abroad. The above-said Pankaj Sharma had called the complainant to the shop of his father i.e. the present petitioner where Pankaj Sharma, the petitioner and his wife had allured the complainant and his relative on the premise, that they could help him in settling abroad. They had duped the complainant of an amount of Rs.62 lakhs. Instead of arranging a visa and work permit for him to settle in USA, they had sent him to Russia wherein he was assaulted by the agents of the petitioner and his son and he was asked to send more money. As per the instructions of the son of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.45 lakhs was given by the family members of the complainant to the present petitioner. The complainant was sent by the associates of accused Pankaj Sharma to USA in illegal manner. He was kept in Jail for 07 months and it was on 05.04.2025 that he was deported by the authorities of USA to India. When he asked for his money back, the petitioner and the other accused started extending threats to him. By alleging that fake visas had been prepared and provided to him and that he had been cheated by the petitioner and the co-accused, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Investigation now stands concluded. His son i.e. co-accused, Pankaj Sharma is, however, absconding and lookout circular has been issued against.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case only because of being father of co-accused Pankaj Sharma. He had nothing to do with the immigration business of his son. The ingredients for commission of the offence of cheating are not at all attracted against him as there is no allegation that there was any inducement or allurement of the complainant by him at any point of time. The money, which was received by him from the complainant side had immediately been taken away. He is not beneficiary of any transaction. His continued detention is not going to serve any useful purpose. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 370 IPC are also not attracted qua him at all. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

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

The petitioner is alleged to be a part of the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused for inducing the complainant to part with an amount of Rs.62 lakhs on the premise of sending him abroad on work permit visa. As per the allegations, the victim had been taken to USA through Dunkey Route and was kept in jail and was then deported. The allegations prima facie show the factum of receipt of some money by the petitioner on behalf of his son, however, it is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence punishable under Section 370 IPC can be drawn. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation. No fruitful purpose would be served by his continued detention. The subject offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the facts as discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.