Raman Kumar vs State Of Punjab

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
1


114 114 114 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026

Raman Kumar
....Petitioner
versus

State of Punjab
....Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 04 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 04 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present Present: Present Present Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG Punjab.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’)
for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR
No.130 dated 28.07.2026, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 13(1) of the Punjab
Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012, at Police Station City Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu drawn from the
order dated 28.10.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed), reads thus:
“ 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that present FIR was
registered on the application moved by complainant Robin Kumar to
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
2

SHO, PS City Jalalabad against accused Raman Kumar s/o Lal Chand,
Pastor (2) Lal Chand Pastor s/o Jannu Ram (3) Ritu Rani w/o Raman
Kumar (4) David s/o Lal Chand Pastor, all Resident of Lalla Basti,
Jalalabad to the SHO, PS City Jalalabad. In the application, it has been
mentioned that Rahul Singh brother of complainant and his friend Vikas
had to go abroad and they had a conversation with the said Raman Kumar
and David and They had demanded for Rs. 1700000 to send them to New
Zealand and they took Rs. 14,00000 as an advance from them, which, he
paid the money through online and the rest in cash. But they didn't get his
brother and his friend and they were waiting for one and a half years but
they have cheated them out of money. They kept demanding their money
returned from them but at first they kept passing the time by making them
promises, after which they had to gather the Panchayat. When they did,
the Panchayat, they called both the parties and a settlement was made
between them at Rs. 11,00,000/- and for the same they gave them a stamp
duty in their favor. He returned them an amount of Rs. 5,50,000 after a
month and took a 6-month grace period to pay the remaining amount and
for this they gave them with a stamp paper and he also gave this condition
in writing that if they do not return the amount within 6 months, then they
are responsible for returning the double the amount. But they have not
returned their money even after taking a period of 6 months. When the
Panchayat persons were sent to their house to demand the money, they
refused to give the money to the Panchayat and badly attitude with them.
Now they are refusing to return their money and are threatening them. On
this, present FIR was registered. ”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare
perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner
are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has
further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in
question. It has been submitted that the deal for arranging visas for Rahul
Singh and Vikas was struck with Satwinder Kaur (sister-in-law of the
petitioner) and one Jai Parkash, and, as such, the petitioner has no concern
whatsoever with the offence in question. Learned counsel has further
submitted that even in the video footage handed over to the police, the
aforesaid Jai Parkash can be seen stating that he would send Rahul Singh
and Vikas abroad and would take responsibility for arranging their visas. It
has been submitted that only a meager amount of Rs.1,85,000/- was received
in the bank account of the petitioner, which was subsequently transferred,
partly to Satwinder Kaur and partly to Madhu Devi, on the instructions of Jai
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
3

Parkash. Learned counsel has further submitted that the amount credited to
the bank account of the petitioner's wife was also transferred to the aforesaid
persons.
3.1. Learned counsel has contended that, in fact, the petitioner
himself is a victim of the circumstances, inasmuch as he too was aspiring to
travel to New Zealand, but while New Zealand Electronic Travel Authority
(NZeTA) authorisations were issued in favour of Rahul Singh and Vikas, no
visa or travel authorisation was arranged for the petitioner. It has further
been submitted that Rahul Singh and Vikas have already travelled abroad
through the intervention of Jai Parkash using the alleged money, and the
complainant himself had uploaded their photographs on his WhatsApp
status.
3.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had
himself lodged a written complaint with the police against Satwinder Kaur,
Jai Parkash and Madhu Devi. It has been contended that the petitioner has
joined the investigation and handed over the relevant material to the police.
Learned counsel has also submitted that during the panchayat convened to
resolve the dispute, the matter was settled for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-,
out of which a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- had already been repaid vide cheque
No.000013 dated 03.06.2025.
3.3. Learned counsel has urged that there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged transactions
pertain to the period between January and December, 2024, the complaint
was lodged on 13.02.2026, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
4

28.07.2026. It has been contended that such delay casts serious doubt on the
prosecution version.
3.4. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should
not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely
necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued
that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the
petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose
would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the aforesaid
submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the alleged offence
committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has
asserted that the petitioner, along with co-accused, in connivance with each
other cheated and defrauded the innocent unemployed youth. It has been
argued that apart from receiving around Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the
petitioner, he was in receipt of some cash money as well. Learned State
counsel has argued that the offence committed by the petitioner caused
substantial financial and emotional distress to the victim. Considering the
seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
necessary for free and fair investigation. Given the severity of the offence,
there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or
tamper with the evidence, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. On the
strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated
for.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
5

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case, material
available on record as also the order whereby anticipatory bail plea of the
petitioner was dismissed by the Court below, prima facie reveals that the
complainant alleged that his brother – Rahul Singh and their friend – Vikas
had paid Rs.14,00,000/- to the accused for arranging their travel to New
Zealand. However, when they failed to travel abroad, a settlement was
arrived at before the panchayat for Rs.11,00,000/-, out of which
Rs.5,50,000/- was refunded, while the remaining amount was agreed to be
paid within 06 months. It is further the case of the prosecution that despite
expiry of the stipulated period, the accused failed to return the outstanding
amount and allegedly refused to make the payment besides extending threats
to the complainant. The Court below has noted that around Rs.2,00,000/-
were transferred in the account of the petitioner on different dates. Keeping
in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially seriousness of the
allegations against the petitioner; this Court does not deem it appropriate to
grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.1. Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a
disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals
posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens
seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause
severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of
lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
6

organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law,
leaving no room for leniency.
6.2. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence
during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be
conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6.3. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,
from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant
case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner had
defrauded the complainant of a substantial amount under the false pretext of
sending his brother and his friend abroad, which caused severe financial and
emotional distress.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the
accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider
impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every
person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear
of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that
prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which
has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a
reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-63482 CRM CRM 63482 63482-2026 63482 2026 2026 2026
7

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment
in effective investigation. In State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039]
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation
is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is
well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest
bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such
a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-
degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders. ”

8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no
compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the
petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary
for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus,
devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.








(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 04 November 04, 2026 November 04 November 04 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.04 16:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment