Gurkirat Singh Sidhu Alias Sunny Chahal v. State of Ut Chandigarh

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 128 05.06.2024 Sector-36, Chandigarh 406, 420, 120-B IPC and 24 of Immigraton Act

¶1The pettoner incarcerated in the FIR captoned above had come up before this Court under Secton 439 of CrPC, seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 13 of the bail petton, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, as per paragraph 4 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta/on

¶1107 07.06.2024 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Sector-17, Chandigarh

¶2258 03.11.2023 406, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC & 24 Sector 9, District of Immigraton Act Ambala (HR)

¶380 21.05.2024 406, 420, 120-B IPC and 24 of Sector 9, District Immigraton Act Ambala (HR)

¶441 27.03.2024 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC Sector-17, Chandigarh

¶5146 06.07.2024 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, Sector-36, 409 IPC and 3/4 of Immigraton Chandigarh Act

¶6192 13.10.2024 420/120-B IPC Sector A Division Amritsar, Divn. Amrisar

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the status report filed by the order/judgment. 1 State, which reads as follows: "6. That before we proceed any further it would be in the fitness of things to detail the facts of the instant case for providing beter assistance to this Hon'ble High Court. That the present case pertains to the FIR No. 128 dated 05.06.2024 registered under Sec*ons 406/420/120-B of IPC & Sec*on-24 of immigra*on Act at Police Sta*on-Sector-36, Chandigarh and subsequently during course of the inves*ga*on vide DDR No.69 dated 18-07-2024 Sec*on-467/468/471/409 of IPC also added in the present FIR, which was registered on the basis of joint complaint of Manjot Kaur, Suman Rani, Gurdas Singh, Amanjot Singh and Anureet Verma being complainants against present pe**oner and co-accused namely Kulvir Singh Kaura, Reet @ Rajwinder Kaura, Nishant being proprietor/Directors of M/s. Vast Visa Immigra*on Services Pvt. Ltd. alleging therein that "They all applied for PR at Canada through above said Immigra*on Firm and they paid total amount Rs.25,6000/- for their PR Visas for Canada. However, inspite of lapse of long *me, present pe**oner and co-accused failed to show them any document rela*ng to their PR applica*ons for Canada. On this occasion, they sent email to the official email of the Immigra*on Firm regarding refund of alleged paid amount but they never received any response to the same and when they approached physically at above said Firm office in order to take refund of their paid amount, present pe**oner and co-accused Rajwinder Kaur from official Bank account of Immigra*on Firm gave them two cheques amoun*ng to Rs.9,96,000/- and Rs.10,15,000/-. However, on inquiry it was found that there were no funds in the Bank account of the said Firm. On asking of the same, pe**oner and co-accused asked them not to present said cheques and they agreed to return their amount in small installments but despite repeated requests, complainant amount i.e. Rs.25,26000/- has not been returned so far. Hence, primarily on these allega*ons present FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered."

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the status report, which read as follows: "ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: -

¶13That as per the allega*ons in the FIR (Annexure P-1) the present pe**oner is one, who inten*onally and knowingly cheated the complainants and during inves*ga*on, it has come on record that he is part of the alleged company namely M/s. Vast Visa Immigra*on Services Pvt and also received mul*ple payments of different-different amounts from the complainants into the alleged company's official bank account and further having the mo*ve behind commission of alleged crime in the present FIR. Which shows that the present pe**oner along with other co-accused are connived the en*re conspiracy and neither get their visas for Canada nor returned the alleged amount to themas on date. Its prima facie proves that pe**oner cheated the complainants for an amount of Rs.25,26,000/- Lacs on the pretext of sending them Canada under order/judgment. 2

¶14That during course of the inves*ga*on KYC details of the alleged company i.e M/s. Vast Visa Immigra*on Services Pvt. Ltd. was verified by the inves*ga*on officer from the ICICI Bank, SCO-31, Sector-67, Mohali and as per the record of the said account there are mul*ple transac*ons of different-different amounts were made from the alleged company's account to the account of the present pe**oner and during further course of the inves*ga*on CDR details of the complainants and present pe**oner was taken and as per the same present pe**oner and the complainants were in contact. It is crystal clears that he is part of the alleged company and received the mul*ple payments of amount into his account on the basis of his working and role in the said company.

¶15That the aforesaid sequence of events makes it clears that present pe**oner is a sharp minded and ac*vely involved in the en*re commission of crime. Further, he in a planned manner duped a huge amount of Rs.25,26,000/- Lacs of the complainants and recovery of the said alleged amount is s*ll pending in the present FIR.

¶16It is further humbly stated that and the offences of such nature are on the rise and cannot be condoned even if the accused ready to setle the mater, be it for whatever reasons. Given the serious nature of allega*ons against the pe**oner, the undersigned most respecJully submits that the present pe**on is liable to be dismissed." REASONING:

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connectng the pettoner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing. As per paragraph 12 of the bail petton, the pettoner has been in custody since 30.07.2024. As per the custody certficate dated 18.02.2025, the pettoner's total custody in this FIR is six months and twenty days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for further pre-trial incarceraton at this stage.

¶8Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail.

¶9Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details: order/judgment. 3

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a#estng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶13This bail is conditonal, and the foundatonal conditon is that if the pettoner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaton for cancellaton of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶14Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶15A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a#est it to be a true copy. If the a#estng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a#estng bonds.

¶16Pe//on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

11.03.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.03.2025 Pronounced on: 11.03.2025 Gurkirat Singh Sidhu @ Sunny Chahal ...Pettoner Versus State of UT Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aman Mi#al, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P. UT Chandigarh. ****