Chirag Bhalla v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11529-2025 Date of decision: May 26th, 2025 Chirag Bhalla .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Anish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocate for Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.206 dated 12.12.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 13 of The Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. 2.

Vide order dated 01.03.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was an employee of prime accused Mankush Parteek Singh Rangi; no doubt an amount of Rs.6,26,000/- was indeed deposited by the complainant into the account of the petitioner, however, it is a matter of record that the said amount was in turn transferred by way of a bank transaction into the account of co-accused Mankush Parteek Singh Rangi. Learned PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.26 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-11529-2025 -2counsel submits that in the circumstances, since the petitioner was not even running the alleged immigration firm, he could be connected with the alleged lure given by the other co-accused to the complainant to send her to Canada."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 01.03.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 01.03.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 26th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.26 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh