Yogesh Ghai v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.58535 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2025 Yogesh Ghai ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Vaneet Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.179 dated 25.10.2024, registered under Sections 420 IPC and under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Added lateron), at Police Station City Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr).

2.

In compliance of the order dated 15.01.2025, the Investigating Officer is present in the Court. 3.

On 22.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "XX XX XX XX The instant FIR has been registered with the allegations that the petitioner and other co-accused have submitted some educational documents to the complainant, who is a private immigration agency for the purpose of sending people abroad and the said documents were found to be forged one, as stated by the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the asking for the relief (supra) submits that even if we considered the allegations as gospel truth, the offences which have been invoked in the instant FIR, are not attracted at all, as no one has been deceit or any wrongful loss has been caused to any person. He further submits that there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the immigration agency and a complaint was also filed in this regard, which is still pending at an enquiry stage. He also submits that since the investigation is based upon documentary evidence, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required, specifically when the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigation agency.

Notice of motion for 15.1.2025.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. At this stage, Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the complainant and has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall, however, join the investigation as and when called for and shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C."

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Ravi Kumar, at the very outset, informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. 5.

In view of the statement of learned State counsel, order dated 22.11.2024 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 6.

The petition stands disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 10.02.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No