Harvinder Kaur Khurana vs State Of U.T Chandigarh

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
1
:: ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(318) CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
Harvinder Kaur Khurana …... Petitioner
V/s
State of U.T., Chandigarh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Satinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh
and Ms. Swadha, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Tushar Garg, Advocate, for the complainant.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
CRM-45921-2026
The application for placing on record a detailed report with
regard to the antecedents of the petitioner is allowed as prayed for subject to
all just exceptions. The same is taken on record.
CRM-38577-2026
The application for placing on record the additional documents
in the main case is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The
same are taken on record.
CRM-M-47736-2026
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS
(Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.119 dated 28.07.2026 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5)
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
2
:: ::
of BNS (Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC) and Section 24 of the Immigration
Act registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Ranjit
Singh and reads as under:-
To, The Honorable U.T. Administrator, Chandigarh. Subject:
Request regarding registration of an FIR and taking action in a
case of fraud committed under the pretext of sending someone
abroad.
Sir, I am Ranjit Singh, son of Puran Singh, resident of House
Number 302, Ward Number 11, Khalsa Colony Sanaur, Tehsil &
District Patiala. Sir, it is requested that Manpreet Singh
Khurana, his wife Harwinder Kaur Khurana, residents of
Chandigarh, Sudagar Singh, and Satnam Singh, resident of
₹
Kharar, defrauded me of 4,50,000/- under the pretext of
sending me to the city of Sacramento in the state of California,
USA on an R1 visa In this regard, I had filed a complaint in the
S.S.P. office on 19/01/2026, bearing complaint number
ICMS/2026/001957, upon which no action was taken.
Thereafter, I gathered information and details regarding the
matter myself and on 09/07/2026, registered it as a
reminder/link to the old complaint under complaint number
ICMS/2026/025923. However, even then, the concerned police
officers did not take any action. In this regard, I have met the
S.S.P. Chandigarh once and the Station House Officer (SHO) of
Police Station, Sector 36, multiple times. I have also provided
my bank statements to the police. Apart from this, I have also
provided the numbers and photographs of the cars purchased
by the accused using the defrauded money, as well as their
mobile numbers. However, till date, neither the call details of
the mobile numbers provided by us have been retrieved, nor has
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
3
:: ::
any investigation been conducted into the bank accounts of the
accused.
Sir, it is requested that an FIR be registered against the accused
immediately to deliver justice, and my hard-earned money and
passports be returned.
Yours faithfully, (Signature) Ranjit Singh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case being the wife of
the main accused-Manpreet Singh Khurana. No specific role has been
attributed to her and she has neither met any complainant nor is there any
evidence of any monetary transaction between the petitioner on the one hand
and any of the complainants on the other. As she is ready and willing to join
the investigation, she is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for
the complainant, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner and her live-
in partner/Manpreet Singh Khurana are serial offenders. Other than the
present case, the petitioner is an accused in 05 other cases of an identical
nature. As many as 52 complaints are pending against the petitioner. 19
additional complaints have been received against her husband-Manpreet
Singh Khurana which are pending enquiry. She had sought the concession
of anticipatory bail in another case registered against her which petition has
been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.09.2026. A co-
accused of the petitioner, namely, Satnam Singh has sought the concession
of anticipatory bail in a connected FIR bearing No.0176 dated 13.08.2025
under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 24 of the Immigration
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
4
:: ::
Act, Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh which petition (CRM-M-56909-
2025) came to be dismissed on 19.11.2025. The said Satnam Singh is
absconding. Keeping in view of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner and her antecedents, she is not entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for
custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we
are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to
the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the
complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
5
:: ::
discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused
should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail
matters, we have noticed one common argument being
canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail .”
7. The relevant extract of the report dated 16.10.2026 filed by way
of an affidavit of Dheeraj Kumar, DANIPS, DSP, SDPO-South-West,
Chandigarh on behalf of the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh, is an under:-
2. That, in compliance with the aforesaid order, the present
application is being filed in the above-noted case to place on
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document
record a detailed report regarding the criminal antecedents of

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
6
:: ::
the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that, as per the
records available with the Investigating Agency, the petitioner
is involved in a total of five FIRs. Out of these, she has been
specifically named as an accused in two FIRs, whereas in the
remaining three FIRs, she was nominated on the basis of the
disclosure statements of co-accused Manpreet Singh Khurana
and was subsequently arraigned as an accused. Thus, as on
date, the petitioner is involved in five FIRs. The details thereof
are as under:-
Sr. FIR Dated Under Sections Police Station Status
No. No.
Sector 36, Specifically
Chandigarh Named
1 119 28.07.2026 316(2),318(4),3(5)
BNS and section
24 Immigration
Act
2 120 28.07.2026 316(2),318(4),3(5)
BNS and section
24 Immigration
Act
Sector 36, Specifically
Chandigarh Named
Sector 36, Nominated in
Chandigarh disclosure of co
accused
Manpreet Singh
Khurana
3 176 13.08.2025 318(4), 61(2), of
BNS and section
24 Immigration
Act
Sector 36, Nominated in
Chandigarh disclosure of co
accused
Manpreet Singh
Khurana
4 144 25.06.2025 318(4), of BNS
section 24
Immigration Act
5 44 06.03.2025 316(2),318(4),336(
3), 338,
340(2),61(2) of
BNS and section
24 Immigration
Act
Sector 36, Nominated in
Chandigarh disclosure of co-
accused
Manpreet Singh
Khurana
3. That it is pertinent to mention that, in FIR No. 176 dated
13.08.2025, the present petitioner was nominated on the basis
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document
of the disclosure statement of the main accused, namely

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
7
:: ::
Manpreet Singh Khurana who categorically stated that the
defrauded amount was further transferred to the account of his
wife ie. the present Petitioner. Thereafter, the account statement
of the accused was verified and it was found that substantial
amount of money was transferred in the bank account of the
present Petitioner by the accused Manpreet Singh Khurana.
Consequently, the present Petitioner arraigned as an accused in
the said FIR vide Zimni dated 09.09.2026. The copy of the
disclosure statement dated 09.09.2026 is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-1.
4. That, in FIR No. 44 dated 06.03.2025, the present petitioner
was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
main accused, namely Manpreet Singh Khurana who
categorically stated that present petitioner was partner with
him in the business and they used to cheat people on pretext of
getting them USA religious VISA and neither they get them
VISA nor returned their money. After verification of the account
the present petitioner was arraigned as an accused in the said
FIR vide Zimnidated 01.09.2026.The copy of the disclosure
statement dated 01.09.2026 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-
2. Likewise, in FIR No. 144 dated 25.06.2025, the present
petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclosure
statement of the main accused, namely Manpreet Singh
Khurana, and was subsequently arraigned as an accused in the
said FIR vide Zimnidated 10.09.2026.
5. That it is pertinent to mention here that, as per the disclosure
statement of co-accused Manpreet Singh Khurana, the bank
account statements of the said co-accused and the present
petitioner were examined. It was found that the co-accused
Manpreet Singh Khurana, after receiving money from clients,
transferred the same to the bank account of the present
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document
petitioner. Further analysis of the bank account of co-accused

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
8
:: ::
Manpreet Singh Khurana revealed that a total amount of
₹
62,78,800/- had been transferred to the bank account of the
present petitioner from the bank account of co-accused
Manpreet Singh Khurana. Accordingly, the present petitioner
has also been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid FIRs.
6. That it is further pertinent to mention that FIR No. 176 dated
13.08.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the
BNS and Section 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station-
36, Chandigarh, was registered on the complaint of Darshan
Singh, and subsequently, 31 other complaints were attached to
the said FIR. Similarly, FIR No. 44 dated 06.03.2025,
registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 24 of the Immigration Act at
Police Station-36, Chandigarh, was registered on the complaint
of Jaspreet, and subsequently, 16 other complaints were
attached to the said FIR. It is further submitted that numerous
complainants whose complaints were attached to the aforesaid
FIRs have specifically named the present petitioner. Thus, the
aforesaid five FIRs collectively involve a total of 52 complaints,
indicating that a large number of persons have allegedly been
defrauded by the petitioner and the other accused persons.
7. It is further pertinent to mention that, apart from the
aforesaid FIRS, 19 additional complaints have presently been
received against the husband of the petitioner namely Manpreet
Singh Khurana, which are pending enquiry. The role of the
present petitioner in said complaints is yet to be verified during
the course of enquiry.
8. Apparently, the petitioner and her husband are serial offenders
with multiple cases registered against them and multiple complaints are
pending enquiry. The allegations in the said cases and the complaints are to
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document
the effect that they have taken money from many persons to send them

CRM-M-47736-2026 (O & M)
9
:: ::
abroad but have cheated those persons. There are banking transactions
showing that her husband has transferred money into her bank account.
Prima facie , the offence against the petitioner stands established. Further,
she had sought the concession of anticipatory bail in a connected FIR and
the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2026 passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench in CRM-M-49562-2026 titled as ‘Harvinder Kaur Khurana
versus State of U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner is absconding in the said
case. A co-accused/Satnam Singh sought the concession of anticipatory bail
in a connected FIR bearing No. 0176 dated 13.08.2025 by way of a petition
bearing No.CRM-M-56909-2025. The said petition was dismissed on
19.11.2025. He too is absconding.
9. The fact that the offence is prima facie established, the
antecedents of the petitioner and her conduct in absconding from justice
does not entitle her to the concession of pre-arrest bail and therefore, the
present petition stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
November 03, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.04 14:33
I agree to specified
portions of this document