Simran Sahij Alias Gaurav Saini v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN NJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG ARH CRM-M-35067-2026 Simran Sa ahij @ Gaurav Saini ....Petitioner V/s of Punjab The State Date of d decision: 03.07.2026 ....Respondent Date of U Uploading : 03.07.2026

CORAM

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for r the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA AG Punjab.

***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET 1.

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petition ner seeking g grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b bail under Section 482 of BNS SS, 2023 in F FIR No.317 dated 22.12.2025 r registered for offences punisha ble under Sec ctions 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3

3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Stati City Gurd daspur, District Gurdaspur.

2.

As per the prosecution case, a written complaint was submit ted by multip ple complainants before the S Senior Superintendent of Poli ice, Gurdaspu ur alleging therein that an immi igration company under the na me and style of 'Candream Overseas', situ uated at Puda Market, Jail Ro ad, Gurdaspu ur. The complainants alleged that t an amount exceeding Rupees O One Crore wa as collected by having induced d numerous persons to part w with substantia al amount(s) of money on the p promise of sending them abroad d. It has been f further alleged that the owner of f the immigration company nam ely Gurvir Si ingh and its operator Harpreet t Singh received money from

victims an nd retained their passports and o other important documents. As p per the comp plaint, two female employees s namely Ramandeep Kaur a and Sukhmanp preet Kaur, who were stated to b be working in the office, interac ted with the p prospective customers. It has b been alleged that despite receipt t of huge amo ounts, the accused persons neith her arranged visas nor returned money & & had cheated the complainant(s s). On these set of allegations, FIR in qu uestion came to be registered an nd investigation ensued. During course of f investigation, the present petitio oner was nominated as an accus sed on the all legation that he was actively as ssociated with the activities of immigrati ion company and had played a role in inducing the complaina ants and facili itating the transactions which ultimately resulted in the alleg ged cheating and fraud. On these set of a allegations, instant FIR has be een registered d and investigation ensued.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that r has been falsely implicated int to the FIR in question and has no connectio on with the alleged fraud. Learne ed counsel has further iterated t hat perusal of f the original complaint clearly s shows that the petitioner was nev ver named by y any of the 22 complainants. A According to learned counsel, complaint t specifically named certain o other persons i.e. Gurvir Sin gh, Harpreet Singh, Ramandeep Kaur an nd Sukhmanpreet Kaur, but no allegation n whatsoever has been levelled against the petitioner. It has be een contended d that the subsequent nomination n of the petitioner during the cou urse of investig gation is stated to be arbitrary an nd without any supporting mater ial.

Learned c counsel has further contended th hat the petitioner is not engaged d in eral the busine ess of sending the persons abro oad and the allegations are gene

and vague e in nature. It has been further s ubmitted that the petitioner has n not participate ed in any transaction and h as never made any promise or representa ation regarding sending any per rson abroad. Learned counsel h has emphasize ed that no recovery is to be ef ffected from the petitioner and r is not a beneficiary of an ny part of the alleged amou unt.

Furthermo ore, no specific overt act has bee en attributed to the petitioner eith her in the FIR R or in any material collected during the course of investigati and, there efore, his custodial interrogatio on is not necessary. It has be een further co ontended that the main accused n namely Gurvir Singh Gill @ Jass s @ Tejas, has s already been arrested and is in n custody since 09.04.2026 and challan h has already been presented b before the competent Court jurisdictio on. It has been further argue ed that the petitioner has cle ean anteceden nts and is willing to fully c cooperate with the investigati on.

Moreover r, there is no likelihood of th e petitioner absconding from process o f justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he e is enlarged o on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant t of anticipato ory bail is entreated for.

4.

Per contra, learned State c counsel has opposed the grant anticipato ory bail to the petitioner by arg guing that the petitioner has be een specifical ly named in the FIR and has pl ayed an active role in cheating complaina ant(s). Learned State counsel ha s iterated that the allegations in present c ase disclose a well-organized f fraud whereby a large number innocent p persons were induced to part wi ith substantial amount(s) of mon ney on the f false promise of sending abr oad. Learned State counsel h has emphasize ed that merely because the peti itioner has not been named in

original c complaint does not absolve him of criminal liability. According g to learned S State counsel, the investigation conducted so far has revealed active inv volvement of the petitioner in the e affairs of Candream Overseas a and his associ iation with the other accused pe ersons involved in the commissi of the off fence. Furthermore, the allegat tions against the petitioner are n not based on mere suspicion but are suppo orted by material collected duri ing investigat tion. It has been further subm mitted that the investigation is a at a nascent st tage and custodial interrogation n of the petitioner is necessary y to unearth th he entire conspiracy, trace the money trial and effect recove ery.

Learned S State counsel has emphasized t that the evidence collected so far suggests t that the petitioner alongwith co-a accused used to allure the innoc ent people on n the pretext of sending them ab broad. Furthermore, learned St tate counsel h as submitted that in case the pet itioner is granted the concession n of pre-arrest t bail, at this stage, it may im mpede the ongoing investigati on.

According gly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the inst ant petition.

5.

I have heard the learned cou unsel for the rival parties and ha ave gone throu ugh the available record of the c case.

6.

As per the case put forth in n the FIR in question, indubitab bly, serious al llegations have been levelled a against the petitioner. The pres ent case relat tes to an organized immigration n fraud wherein a large number r of persons a are alleged to have been induce d to part with substantial sums money on n false assurances of being sen nt abroad. The amount involved d is stated to be more than Rs.1.00 crore. Th he material which has been plac ced s of before the e Court indicates that the petitio oner is involved in the activities

the immig gration company. The plea of th he petitioner that he was neithe er a licensed a agent nor a direct beneficiary of f the amount allegedly received i is a matter wh hich can be examined during th e course of investigation/trial. T The absence o of direct recovery from the petit tioner at this stage does not dil ute the allega ations or involvement of the pe etitioner in the alleged conspira acy.

Furthermo ore, the investigation is stil ll underway and the custod dial interrogat tion of the petitioner may be es ssential to trace the financial flo ow, recover r relevant documents and asce ertain the involvement of oth her individual ls. The seriousness of the all legations, the involvement of r in inducing the complainant(s s) as also the money trail wei igh heavily ag gainst the grant of anticipatory b bail to the petitioner. Furthermo ore, the stand of the investigating agency bef fore this Court is that the custod dial interrogat tion of the petitioner is impe erative considering the nature allegation ns, the money trial and to recover r the cheated amount.

7.

It is trite law that anticipato ry bail is an extraordinary reme edy not to be e granted as a matter of cours se, particularly in cases involvi ing serious of ffences. While considering antic cipatory bail, the Court must str ike a balance between the right of the individ dual to liberty and the need for fr ree, fair and e ffective investigation. The inve stigation is ongoing and to ident tify the other r possible accused persons, t this Court does not consider it appropria ate to grant bail at this nascent s stage. In the considered opinion n of this Court t, granting anticipatory bail to th he petitioner at this stage may lik ely hamper th he on-going investigation. No c cause nay plausible cause has be een shown, at t this stage, from which it can be e deciphered that the petitioner h has been false ely implicated into the present FI IR.

8.

It is befitting to mention her re that while considering a plea for grant of a anticipatory bail, the Court has to o equilibrate between safeguardi ing individual l rights and protecting societal in nterests. The Court ought to reck kon with the magnitude and nature of the o offence; the role attributed to accused; t the need for fair and free investig gation as also the deeper and wid der impact of f such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material o on record to hold that prima fac cie case is not made out against r. The material which has co ome on record and prelimina ary investigat tion, appear to be established a r reasonable basis for the accusatio ons at this sta age. Thus, it is not appropriate e to grant anticipatory bail to r, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effect ive investigat tion.

In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submissi ion of CBI that custodial interrogation n is qualitatively more elicitation-orie ented than questioning a suspect who o is well-ensconced with a favourable e order under Section 438 of the Code e. In a case like this, effective inter rrogation of a suspected person is s of tremendous advantage in disinte rring many useful information and a also materials which would have been concealed. Success in s uch interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is w well protected and insulated by a pre e-arrest bail order during the time he e is interrogated. Very often interroga ation in such a condition would reduce e to a mere ritual.

The argument tha at the custodial interrogation is frau ught with the danger of the person b being subjected to third-degree meth ods need not be countenanced, for, su uch an argument can be advanced by y all accused in all criminal cases. Th he Court has to presume that responsi ible police officers would conduct th hemselves in task of disintering offen nces would not conduct themselves as o offenders."

9.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of dial offence a and the stage of investigation a as also the necessity of custod

interrogat tion for recovery of the amoun nt in question, this Court is of considere d opinion that the petitioner do oes not deserve the concession anticipato ory bail in the factual milieu of th he case in hand.

10.

In view of the prevenient rati iocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The instant petition is devoid d of merits and is hereby dismiss sed.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove sh hall be deemed to be an expressi of opinion n upon merits of the case/investig gation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any y, shall also stand disposed off.

July 03, 2 Ajay (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No