Sukhwinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M)

Sukhwinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 30.10.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Om Melhan, Advocate,
Ms. Mehar Sachdev, Advocate,
Ms. Simran Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
in FIR No. 109 dated 16.05.2025, registered under Sections 143, 318(4) and
61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals
(Regulation) Act, 2014 (Sections 140(2), 249 and 253 BNS added later on) at
Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1).
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 2
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant
Gurdeep Kaur against Dheeraj Atwal, Kamal Atwal and Savita Soya alleging
that her son Amritpal Singh wanted to go abroad and that in April, 2025, she
visited the office of Dheeraj Atwal at Adda Piplanwala along with him. A
deal was settled for sending him to Australia for Rs.18 lacs. His original
passport and other documents were handed over and the said amount was
paid to the aforesaid persons. A copy of Australian visa was sent to them, but
the date of the flight was changed more than once. Dheeraj Atwal then gave
air tickets of Dubai and Iran to Amritpal Singh and told him that he would be
sent from Iran to Australia on 03.05.2025. On 02.05.2025, Amritpal Singh
telephonically informed that he, Husanpreet Singh and Jaspal Singh had been
caught in Iran on account of a dispute over money with the Indian agents.
The persons detaining them made video calls while beating them and
demanded Rs.18 lacs each for their release. During investigation, statements
of Narinder Kaur, mother of Jaspal Singh, and Balwinder Kaur, mother of
Husanpreet Singh, were recorded. They stated that Kamal Atwal and Dheeraj
Atwal had struck a deal with their sons for sending them to Australia for
Rs.18 lacs each on a work permit. Their sons were later called to the office of
the petitioner, Sameer Ahuja, at BRB Consultant, near Radisson Hotel, BMC
Chowk, Jalandhar. There, the petitioner, Kamal Atwal, Dheeraj Atwal and
one unknown person took Rs.9 lacs from Jaspal Singh and Rs.12 lacs from
Husanpreet Singh, and the petitioner assured them of sending them abroad.
They were sent to Dubai and then to Iran, where they were got kidnapped in
connivance with the petitioner and the co-accused. On the basis of these
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 3
statements, the petitioner was nominated in this case on 29.05.2025 and
Section 140(2) BNS was added vide DDR No. 39 of the same date. It was
verified during investigation that his actual name is Sukhwinder Kumar @
Sameer Ahuja. The petitioner was arrested on 29.06.2025. Baldish Kaur and
Karanpreet Singh @ Karan were also nominated in this case. After
completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner and these two co-
accused was presented on 01.10.2025. Co-accused Dheeraj Atwal, Kamal
Atwal and Savita Soya are yet to be arrested.
3. As discernible from the record, the bail application of the
petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur
on 21.01.2026. His first petition before this Court was allowed vide order
dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-2). When the release warrants were sent to the
jail authorities, it came to notice that Section 140(2) BNS had not been
mentioned in the said petition. His application for modification of the order
was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2026 (Annexure P-3). His next petition
was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.06.2026 with liberty to approach the
learned trial Court for seeking bail under Section 140(2) BNS (Annexure P-
4). His application filed, thereafter, was dismissed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-5). It was observed
that the said Court could not add the offence under Section 140(2) BNS in the
bail order passed by this Court. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not named in the FIR and all
the allegations of the complainant are against co-accused Dheeraj Atwal,
Kamal Atwal and Savita Soya. The alleged amount was paid to them and the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 4
petitioner is not a beneficiary of the same. This Court has already granted
regular bail to him vide order dated 20.04.2026 and his release has been
stalled only on account of the omission of Section 140(2) BNS from the
earlier petition. His application before the learned trial Court has been
dismissed on a technical ground without touching the merits. The petitioner is
a physically challenged person, having 60% permanent disability of lower
limb, and is dependent upon a wheelchair for his mobility. Co-accused
Baldish Kaur has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court
(Annexure P-6). Investigation stands completed and challan has been filed.
Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since
08.07.2025 and undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions which
may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves
to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.
5. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned
State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner. As per the statements of Narinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur, he
along with the co-accused took Rs.18 lacs each from them for sending their
sons abroad. Their sons were not sent to Australia and the money was not
returned. One more similar case is pending against him. It is, thus, argued
that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have taken Rs.9 lacs from Jaspal
Singh and Rs.12 lacs from Husanpreet Singh at his office at Jalandhar on the
assurance of sending them abroad. Co-accused Kamal Atwal, Dheeraj Atwal
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 5
and one unknown person are stated to have been present with him. He is
further alleged to have connived with the co-accused in sending them to Iran
through Dubai, where they were kidnapped along with Amritpal Singh and a
demand of Rs.18 lacs each was raised. In view of these allegations, the plea
that no role has been attributed to the petitioner cannot be accepted. At the
same time, he is not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the
statements of Narinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur recorded during
investigation. As per the FIR, the amount of Rs.18 lacs was paid by the
complainant to Dheeraj Atwal, Kamal Atwal and Savita Soya. The demand
made after the alleged kidnapping is attributed to the persons who had
detained the boys in Iran. The extent of the petitioner’s connection with the
said kidnapping and demand can be determined only after evidence is led at
the trial. It is true that an offence under Section 140(2) BNS is punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. This provision was added on 29.05.2025,
i.e. prior to the arrest of the petitioner, but it was not mentioned in the
petition which was allowed by this Court on 20.04.2026. The said order,
therefore, cannot be read as having dealt with this provision and the plea of
the petitioner has to be examined afresh in respect thereof. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge did not go into the merits of the matter while
dismissing the application on 10.07.2026. However, the allegations forming
the basis of Section 140(2) BNS arise out of the same FIR and the same
transaction. This Court has already considered it fit to grant bail to the
petitioner in respect of the other offences. Gravity of the offence is
undoubtedly a relevant consideration, but it cannot be the sole ground for
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 6
keeping an accused in custody when the other circumstances of the case
justify grant of bail.
8. Co-accused Baldish Kaur, who is stated to be the main agent,
has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in this very case vide order
dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-6). Section 140(2) BNS was mentioned in the
said petition. As per status report, co-accused Karanpreet Singh has also been
granted interim bail by this Court in respect of the offences including Section
140(2) BNS. Though the role of the petitioner is not identical to that of the
said co-accused, this aspect cannot be ignored altogether. Dheeraj Atwal,
Kamal Atwal and Savita Soya, who are named in the FIR, are stated to have
fled away, and the petitioner cannot be kept in custody indefinitely on this
account. The petitioner has claimed that he is not involved in any other case.
However, as per status report, he is involved in the aforesaid other case(s),
and this plea was also raised by the State when the order dated 20.04.2026
was passed. Mere pendency of other case(s), by itself, is not a ground to deny
bail. The petitioner is stated to be suffering from 60% permanent disability of
lower limb and to be dependent upon a wheelchair, which also lessens the
possibility of his fleeing from justice. He has been in custody for more than
one year and three months. Investigation against him stands completed and
challan has been presented. The case is at its initial stage, being fixed for
12.11.2026 for appearance, and supplementary challan is yet to be presented
against the co-accused. Conclusion of trial would obviously take time.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner in custody anymore.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40587-2026 (O&M) 7
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail in the aforesaid FIR, including the
offence under Section 140(2) BNS, subject to his furnishing personal/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail
in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.
10. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
03.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document