Bharpur Singh v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 24.07.2024 Bharpur Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 02.07.2024 Civil Lines, District Bathinda 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, 1971 GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J .

1.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR. 2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Lovepreet Singh wherein he stated that he and his wife Navdeep Kaur are providing consultation and facilitation services for study visa and immigration. It is further

- 2 - stated that a few months back Sandeep Singh, Harmanpreet Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur approached him in connection with issuance of Visa for UK. They were apprised that a COC letter is required for getting a Visa of UK. Pardeep Singh, Mahinder Singh, Baljeet Kaur, Satvir Singh represented that COC could be arranged @ Rs.13.5 lakhs per applicant i.e. Rs.40.50 lakhs for the three applicants. The complainant asked the said persons to work with him. However, the aforesaid persons namely Pardeep Singh, Mohinder Singh, Baljit Kaur, Satvir Singh and Bharpur Singh committed a fraud and furnished fabricated COC letters and thus deprived them of Rs.40.50 lakhs. When the complainant applied for getting Visa for the aforesaid three applicants namely Sandeep Singh, Harmanpreet Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur, they were refused Visas and have been banned from entering U.K. It is alleged that aforesaid Pardeep Singh, Mohinder Singh, Baljit Kaur, Satvir Singh and Bharpur Singh rather extended threats to the complainant to defame them in case they approach the police.

3.

The complainant alleged that after having collected the amount of Rs.40.50 lakhs, he had handed over the same to the aforesaid Pardeep Singh, Mohinder Singh, Baljit Kaur, Satvir Singh and Bharpur Singh. The complainant asserted that since he has been doing the business in an honest manner for the last several years, therefore, he at his own level paid the amount of Rs.40.50 lakhs to the three children and that the said children are also willing to make a statement to the effect that

- 3 - the amount in question had been given to Pardeep Singh, Mohinder Singh, Baljit Kaur, Satvir Singh and Bharpur Singh. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false allegation whereas the instant case is a case where the complainant himself had defrauded the innocent children and now by way of filing the instant FIR the complainant is trying to cover up his own misdeeds. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner-Bharpur Singh, in any case, is an aged man of 52 years and has been implicated as an accused in order to pressurize his entire family including his son Satvir Singh who is also arrayed as an accused.

5.

This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. 6.

A perusal of the FIR would indicate that very clear and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as well as other co-accused as regards the accused having defrauded three minor children for an amount of Rs.40.50 lakhs. Infact, a specific amount of Rs.26.5 lakhs is stated to have been handed over to the petitioner on 06.11.2023. Since, the complainant was extending his professional services to the children, he also came to be associated but in any case he has already paid an amount of Rs.40.50 lakhs to the children at his own level to show his bonafides. It is further the case of the complainant that the defrauded children are willing to make a specific statement against the accused to the effect that it is the accused who

- 4 - had actually defrauded them for an amount of Rs.40.50 lakhs. A perusal of the rejection letters annexed with the petition clearly shows that the Visa had been declined on account of the applicants having furnished forged documents. The innocent children would now be debarred applying afresh for a Visa and their career stand jeopardised. In any case in order to unearth all the finer details of the racket, the custodial interrogation of the accused would be required. 7.

Finding no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

24.07.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No