AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
First Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] read with Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.43 dated 16.05.2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014, at Police Station Patara, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab, the petitioner asserting that he is himself a victim of the alleged fraud perpetrated by co-accused Shelly, who, being a citizen of the USA, allegedly induced him on the assurance of marrying him and taking him to the USA, and obtained the use of his bank account on the pretext that, being an NRI, she did not maintain a bank account in India.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Harjit Kaur, alleging that she had been cheated by co-accused Shelly and the petitioner to the tune of ₹13,07,500/- on the pretext of facilitating her travel abroad. It is alleged that the complainant, having expressed her desire to go abroad to her relative Ashdeep Singh, was introduced to co-accused Shelly, who represented that she had previously facilitated the travel of several persons abroad and could similarly arrange the complainant's travel for a total consideration of ₹17,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the complainant allegedly paid an aggregate amount of ₹13,07,500/- on different dates. It is further alleged that co-accused Shelly thereafter furnished fake air tickets, an approval letter and a visa, which were subsequently found to be fabricated. Upon demanding refund of the amount, the complainant allegedly received threats, leading to registration of the present FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the petitioner neither interacted with the complainant nor induced her to travel abroad, demanded any money from her, or furnished any of the alleged forged documents, which, even as per the prosecution, were supplied by co-accused Shelly. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself was allegedly induced by co-accused Shelly, an NRI and citizen of the USA, who represented that she would marry him and facilitate his travel to the USA. His bank account was allegedly used at her instance on the pretext that, being an NRI, she had no bank account in India.
Learned counsel submits that the amounts received in the petitioner's account were subsequently transferred to Gurtej Singh, stated to be an associate of Shelly, and the petitioner has been implicated merely on account of the use of his bank account. The petitioner is ready to join and cooperate with the investigation and, accordingly, seeks the concession of anticipatory bail.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and his bank account was admittedly utilised for receipt of substantial amounts allegedly collected from the complainant and other prospective travellers. Learned State counsel contends that the precise role of the petitioner, his knowledge regarding the transactions, the circumstances in which his bank account was utilised, and the subsequent movement of the funds are matters which require thorough investigation. It is further submitted that the nature and magnitude of the alleged financial fraud, coupled with the involvement of multiple persons and the alleged inducement of an innocent person on the promise of facilitating travel abroad, warrant custodial interrogation for an effective and comprehensive investigation. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage and dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds no justification to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The allegations are not confined to a mere monetary or contractual dispute. The prosecution case discloses a serious allegation of cheating whereby an amount of approximately ₹13.07 lakh, allegedly paid by the complainant for facilitating her travel abroad, was credited into the petitioner's bank account. The fact that the entire amount was routed through the petitioner's account is a circumstance which, at this stage, warrants a proper investigation into his knowledge, participation and the ultimate utilisation and movement of the funds.
The allegation assumes greater seriousness in view of the further accusation that the complainant was furnished with fake travel documents, including a purported visa and air tickets, on the representation that she would be facilitated in travelling abroad. The investigation is, therefore, not merely required to ascertain the receipt of money in the petitioner's account, but also to unravel the complete modus operandi, identify the source and preparation of the allegedly fabricated documents, trace the subsequent movement of the money and ascertain the respective roles of the petitioner and his co-accused.
The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner that he himself was deceived by co-accused Shelly and that his bank account was utilised by her on the pretext that, being an NRI, she did not maintain an account in India, is a matter requiring investigation and cannot, at this stage, be accepted as an established fact. The competing assertions of the petitioner and the co-accused cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for anticipatory bail. The plea that the petitioner was merely an innocent conduit would necessarily require verification from the banking trail, communications between the parties, the circumstances in which his account was made available and the subsequent disposition of the amounts received therein.
This Court cannot lose sight of the larger ramifications of offences of this nature. Allegedly alluring persons with promises of a better future abroad, inducing them to part with their hard-earned money and life savings, furnishing purportedly genuine but allegedly fabricated travel documents and thereafter disowning responsibility by blaming one another, is a matter of grave concern. Such conduct, if established, not only causes substantial financial devastation to innocent persons but may also expose them to serious consequences to their life and safety in a foreign country. The gravity of the accusation and the manner in which the alleged transaction was operated, therefore, weigh heavily against the petitioner at this stage.
The mere assertion that the petitioner has not personally prepared the allegedly fake visa or that the principal role was played by the co-accused cannot, by itself, absolve him from investigation, particularly when the alleged consideration was received in his bank account. The investigation is required to be permitted to proceed unhindered so as to determine whether the petitioner knowingly facilitated the transactions or merely permitted the use of his account without any culpable knowledge.
In the totality of the circumstances, the specific monetary trail leading to the petitioner's account, the allegation of furnishing fake visa/travel documents, the substantial amount allegedly obtained from the complainant, the serious nature of the allegations, the need to unravel the modus operandi and ascertain the respective roles of the accused, cumulatively constitute sufficient grounds to decline the extraordinary protection sought by the petitioner. At this stage, custodial interrogation cannot be held to be wholly unwarranted.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The gravity and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the necessity of an effective and comprehensive investigation, outweigh the petitioner's claim for pre-arrest protection. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the prayer for pre-arrest bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner.
In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.