Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 14.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Harmandeep Singh, employee of M/s Suncoast Immigration Company.
  • Respondent: State of UT Chandigarh.
  • Proceedings: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail.
  • FIR Details: FIR No. 073 dated 11.07.2026 registered at Police Station Sector 3, District Chandigarh under Sections 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420 and 120‑B IPC).
  • Allegations: While working for Suncoast Immigration Company, the petitioner allegedly conspired with the firm’s proprietor and other employees to induce a complainant to part with ₹8,01,295 by promising a Canadian work permit that was never secured. Of this amount, ₹2,40,000 was transferred directly into the petitioner’s bank account.
  • Prosecution Stance: The Additional Public Prosecutor, Narender Kumar Vashist, opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the fraud, the direct receipt of ₹2.40 lakh by the petitioner, and the need for custodial interrogation to unravel the modus operandi, trace the money trail, and identify other participants.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: Counsel argued the petitioner is innocent, willing to cooperate, and prepared to refund the amount, contending that arrest for offences carrying up to seven years’ imprisonment should not be automatic.
  • Court Observations: The court noted that willingness to refund does not erase alleged criminality. The financial trail directly links the petitioner to the transaction. Although the investigating agency failed to prepare the statutory arrest‑assessment memorandum, the court held that this procedural lapse does not automatically entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation is justified. The court also considered the existence of other pending similar cases against the petitioner as a factor, though not determinative.

Final Outcome

  • The court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding no grounds to extend pre‑arrest relief at this stage.
  • The petition was dismissed.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications arising from or ancillary to these proceedings were ordered disposed of.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Fraud, Immigration Scam