Simranjit Singh vs State of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dated 02.04.2025 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC (Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023) and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 registered at Police Station Division-8, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

The case of the prosecution is that FIR No.72 dated 02.04.2025, registered at Police Station Division No.8, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act, 2014, corresponding to Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. As per the complaint of Dalbir Singh, he, along with Baby and Jatinder Kumar, intended to go to Australia on tourist visas. They approached petitioner-Simranjit Singh, who introduced them to co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Happy Dhillon, stated to be a travel agent. It was represented to the complainant party that tourist visas, air tickets and tour packages for Australia would be arranged for them, at an agreed cost of approximately ₹5 lakh per person. Pursuant to the said representation, the complainant party handed over their passports, Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards and other relevant documents. The inquiry conducted by the police revealed that the documents were handed over to co-accused Jaswinder Singh at the office of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shared, through WhatsApp, a copy of a tourist visa pertaining to Baby and also shared the QR code relating to the bank account of co-accused Jaswinder Singh, pursuant to which amounts were transferred by the complainant party into the said account. The inquiry report records various UPI/net-banking transactions and concludes that a total amount of ₹4,49,200 had been paid. Subsequently, when the complainant party sought information regarding their visas, the accused allegedly started delaying the matter on one pretext or another. The tourist visa shared through WhatsApp was got checked and was found to be fake. It was further found during inquiry that co-accused Jaswinder Singh did not possess a licence for running a travel agency. The passports were eventually returned, but the money was not returned to the complainant party. Allegations of threats were also made. On the basis of the inquiry, the police concluded that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out against petitioner-Simranjit Singh and co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Happy Dhillon and recommended registration of the FIR. The inquiry report also specifically recorded that the authenticity of the visa sent through WhatsApp was required to be verified during investigation and that further action was required.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has no role in the alleged cheating. According to the petitioner, his involvement was limited to introducing the complainant party to co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Happy Dhillon, who was dealing in travel-related work. It is contended that the passports and other relevant documents were handed over directly to Jaswinder Singh and that the entire alleged cheated amount of ₹4,49,200 was credited into the bank account of Jaswinder Singh, and no part of the said amount was ever transferred to or received by the petitioner. Therefore, according to learned counsel, there is no tangible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation or cheating.

It is further argued that the FIR suffers from considerable delay. The alleged transactions took place in June 2024, whereas the complaint before the Commissioner of Police was submitted on 18.10.2024 and the FIR was ultimately registered on 02.04.2025. According to learned counsel, the delay is unexplained and creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations and lends support to the petitioner's plea of false implication.

Learned counsel also submits that Sections 406 and 420 IPC are based upon distinct ingredients and that, on the facts of the present case, neither the offence of cheating nor criminal breach of trust is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has not been declared a proclaimed offender and has never been arrested in the present case. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court. It is argued that no useful purpose would be served by his custodial interrogation, particularly when the alleged amount has already been traced to the account of the co-accused.

Notice of Motion .

Mr. J.S. Rattu, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner cannot be treated as a mere introducer, as the material collected during inquiry prima facie shows his active association with the entire transaction. It is pointed out that the petitioner was known to the complainant and was the person who introduced him to co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Happy Dhillon. The complainant party thereafter met the co-accused in connection with the proposed travel to Australia. The inquiry further revealed that the petitioner had shared the tourist visa of one of the complainants through WhatsApp and had also shared the QR code relating to the bank account of co-accused Jaswinder Singh, pursuant to which the complainant party transferred money into that account.

Learned State counsel further submitted that the petitioner and co-accused acted together in inducing the complainant party to part with a substantial amount of ₹4,49,200 on the promise of arranging tourist visas for Australia, whereas fake visas were ultimately supplied. Neither were the complainants sent abroad nor was their money returned. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for recovery of the cheated amount and for uncovering the complete truth regarding the transaction and the respective roles of the accused. The State, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he acted as a link between the complainant and the travel agent and introduced the complainant to the said travel agent. Thereafter, an amount of ₹4,49,200/- was paid for arranging travel arrangements, visas, flight tickets and a tour package for Australia. It is further alleged that the petitioner forwarded a fake visa of Baby to the complainant. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purposes of effective investigation. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.