Rajvir Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.217 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 RAJVIR SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate and Ms. Gurvinder Kaur Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.131 dated 24.09.2025 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 420 and 120-B IPC) at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2.

Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of an application moved by complainant Harjit Singh before the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar alleging that accused Gurbinder Kaur and her son Rajvir Singh induced him to pay money on the assurance of sending his son Kanwaljit Singh and daughter-in-law Gurpreet Kaur to England on a work visa. As per the allegations, a deal for Rs.24 lakhs was struck between the parties and initially an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid in cash to accused

Rajvir Singh. Thereafter, further amounts were allegedly taken from the complainant on different pretexts including visa processing, tickets and biometric expenses. It has further been alleged that though the accused represented that a work visa had been arranged, in fact only a tourist visa was procured for the son of the complainant and this fact was concealed from him. According to the prosecution, a total amount of Rs.14,65,000/- was taken from the complainant by the accused persons. It is further the allegation that when the son of the complainant reached the U.K. Airport, he was deported back after the authorities found that he was travelling on a tourist visa allegedly procured on the basis of forged documents. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the main allegations are against his mother. It has been argued that the complainant was introduced to the petitioner's mother through his close relative Lovepreet Singh, who himself was engaged in the immigration business. It has further been contended that the complainant was fully aware that the visa granted to his son was a tourist visa and despite the same, he voluntarily travelled to the U.K. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the dispute, at best, is of civil nature arising out of monetary transactions and no offence of cheating is made out. It has also been argued that out of the alleged amount, only Rs.2,54,900/- was transferred through bank account and the remaining amount is alleged to have been paid in cash without any documentary proof. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2026, is no longer required for investigation and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail and submitted that the petitioner played an active role in duping the complainant party on the pretext of arranging work visa for England. It has been contended that substantial evidence has surfaced during investigation showing that the petitioner received cash as well as online transfers from the complainant and also collected original passports of the complainant party. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are duly corroborated from the statements of witnesses and bank account transactions collected during investigation. It has also been argued that the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases of similar nature and material witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial Court. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations against the present petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, duped the complainant of an amount of Rs.14,65,000/- on the false assurance of procuring a work visa for England for the son of the complainant. However, instead of a work visa, a tourist visa was allegedly arranged and the son of the complainant was ultimately deported back from the U.K. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant was aware about the nature of visa and that the matter is civil in nature, are all matters of evidence which shall be examined during the course of trial.

6.

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that offences relating to cheating innocent persons on the pretext of sending them abroad are mushrooming day by day and gullible people are being duped of their hard-

earned money under the false promise of overseas employment and settlement. The allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose a wellplanned act of cheating involving huge monetary transactions. Moreover, material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned trial Court and, therefore, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the present regular bail petition stands dismissed. 8.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 21.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No