Gurpreet Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.05.2026 Gurpreet Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate (joined through VC) for the petitioners.

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

The present is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.193 dated 30.12.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC (Sections 316, 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) at Police Station Dehlon, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, in the interest of justice and fair play.

2.

Briefly stated, the allegations in the present FIR are that the complainant, namely Ramjeet Singh, alleged that petitioner Gurpreet Singh, being known to him, introduced him to one Davinder Singh, who represented himself to be a travel agent capable of sending the complainant's daughter abroad on study basis through a contract marriage arrangement. It is alleged that the accused persons persuaded the

-2complainant to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for the said purpose, pursuant whereto an amount of Rs.50,000/- was allegedly spent on the proposed contract marriage and a further sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was transferred in the bank account of Davinder Singh with the active facilitation of the present petitioners. However, neither any visa was arranged nor the amount was returned to the complainant. It is further alleged that cheques issued towards repayment were dishonoured and during investigation, the bank transactions allegedly revealed transfer of commission amount to the accounts of the present petitioners, on the basis whereof the present FIR came to be registered against them. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery has been effected from them. It is argued that no specific direct role has been attributed to the petitioners and that they have merely been roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature arising out of a monetary transaction and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. It is further contended that the petitioners are peaceloving citizens, are not involved in any other criminal case, are not proclaimed offenders and are ready to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the

-3present petition for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners, in connivance with the co-accused, cheated the complainant of an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- under the pretext of sending his daughter abroad. It is further submitted that at the instance of the petitioners, the complainant was also made to spend an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- on the alleged contract marriage of his daughter. Learned State counsel submits that the amount in question was received by the petitioners and there are specific allegations regarding their active involvement in the commission of the offence.

6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 7.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners, in active connivance with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with substantial amounts on the false assurance of sending his daughter abroad through illegal means including an alleged contract marriage arrangement. Despite receiving the amount, neither any visa was arranged nor the money was returned to the complainant. The investigation further reveals transfer of money and commission amounts in the accounts connected with the petitioners. Such offences of cheating innocent persons on the false promise of sending them abroad are increasingly coming to the fore and

-4have serious societal ramifications. Unsuspecting persons are being duped of their hard-earned money by exploiting their desire to secure better opportunities abroad for their children. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage. 8.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

9.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

(MANDEEP PANNU) 11.05.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No