Sandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 18.03.2026 SANDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate, for Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner (through VC mode).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Sandeep Singh, aged about 35 years 21.04.2025 406, 420, 120-B of IPC Sadar Khanna Ludhiana 2.

On 25.06.2025, following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner deposited the amount in the account of 'Hardik Holidays' through Sachin Kumar Rozer for sending the complainant abroad. He further submits that with the similar allegations, the father of petitioner has already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions

Judge, Ludhiana. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation.

Notice of motion for 26.08.2025.

Mr. Siddharath Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appears through video-conferencing; accepts notice on behalf of respondentState; seeks time to have instructions and / or file response in the matter.

In the meanwhile, petitioner will join investigation before the Investigating Officer as and when called. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to interim bail, till the next date of hearing, on his furnishing adequate bail bonds/ surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner is directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

3.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that both petitioner and complainant aspired to settle in the USA and, in furtherance of this objective, had approached an agent, namely Baljinder Singh alias Fauji. It is submitted that both the individuals initially stayed in Dubai, where they developed a close friendship. During this period, Baljinder Singh alias Fauji introduced them to one Sachin Kumar Rozer. Subsequently, petitioner abandoned his plans to settle abroad and returned to India, whereas complainant continued to reside in Dubai. 4.

As per the allegations, complainant had entrusted the petitioner for the purpose of transferring the money to the aforesaid agent, Sachin Kumar Rozer, in connection with visa arrangements. It is argued that petitioner had merely acted upon instructions of the complainant and neither derived any personal benefit from the transaction nor committed any offence. It is further submitted that even the complainant's brother-in-law had directly transferred money to the agent's account.

5.

Broadly, counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner himself is a victim of fraud perpetrated by Baljinder Singh alias Fauji. 6.

In support of these submissions, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the UPI transaction details, annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-8.

7.

It is also pointed out that neither of the alleged agents, namely Baljinder Singh alias Fauji and Sachin Kumar Rozer, have been arrayed as accused in the present case.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in compliance of the order dated 25.06.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

9.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that an amount of Rs.36,50,000/- is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. However, on instructions received from ASI Amarjeet Singh, learned State counsel fairly concedes that petitioner had joined the investigation on 03.08.2025, as averred by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11.

Undisputedly, petitioner has already joined the investigation, in compliance with the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court. Insofar as the alleged receipt of the amount is concerned, as of now, there is no explanation forthcoming from the State, regarding transfer of the

said amount by the petitioner through UPI transactions, which have also been appended with the present petition.

12.

Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to confirm the adinterim bail order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 13.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.03.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO