Harpreet Singh Hari and Kuldeep Kaur V. State of Punjab

CRM-M/53266/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two petitions for anticipatory bail filed by Harpreet Singh Hari and Kuldeep Kaur, related to an FIR alleging cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014. The FIR was registered based on the complaint of Taranjit Singh, who alleged that he was cheated of Rs. 25 lakhs by Harpreet Singh, an immigration consultant, under the pretense of facilitating overseas immigration. The court examined the financial dealings and relationships between the parties, noting a complex background of business interactions and disputes. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of further investigative need for Harpreet Singh Hari and the legal scrutiny required for the cash transactions claimed by the complainant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822318 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793
• Laws Referred To: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MOHIT KAPOOR; PRABHDEEP BHANDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MANVINDER SIDHU; KESHAV SINGH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Cash payment; Financial transactions; Financial transactions; Immigration Fraud; Visa Assurance
• Section: 13; 482; 420; 406; 305; 331(3)

Judgement Text

"CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Date of decision: 08.12.2025. (1) CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) HARPREET SINGH HARI ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) ` *** (2) CRM-M-61866-2025 (O&M) KULDEEP KAUR ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-53266-2025. Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-61866-2025. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bhandari, Advocate, for the complainant. Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -2- VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) CRM-48729-2025 in CRM-M-53266-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. CRM-49426-2025 in CRM-M-53266-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Complainant Taranjeet Singh is impleaded as a party-respondent No.2. Amended Memo is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. CRM-49427-2025 in CRM-M-53266-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures C-1 to C-5 are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. CRM-49655-2025 in CRM-M-61866-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-6 to P-10 are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place Main case Both the above petitions seeking grant of anticipatory bail are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same FIR and involve identical questions for consideration. 2 The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -3- petitioners in case bearing FIR No.89 dated 24.06.2025, under Section(s) 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Badali Ala Sing, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 3 The FIR in the present matter was registered on the statement of Taranjit Singh, son of Tarlochan Singh, resident of village Hindupur, Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. As per the allegations, the complainant came into contact with the accused Harpreet Singh, an immigration consultant, through social media. Harpreet Singh claimed to operate from the office of High Rise Immigration Consultancy, located at SCO 76–79, 4th Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, and further represented that the complainant himself was shown as the owner of that office. Harpreet Singh allegedly informed the complainant that he travelled daily from Sangrur and arranged to meet him at “Bhure Da Dhaba” on Chandigarh Road. During the meeting, Harpreet Singh assured the complainant of facilitating overseas immigration, stating that they had an office in Surrey, Canada, known as Far East Company, operated by co-accused Kuldip Kaur, daughter of another accused, Harbans Kaur. Harpreet Singh purportedly showed visas granted to other individuals on his mobile phone, thereby gaining the complainant’s confidence. After visiting the Chandigarh office and making inquiries, the complainant, believing the representations, handed over his original passport, photographs, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and ₹5 lakh in cash. Subsequently, Harpreet Singh informed the complainant that his visa was approved and showed him a PPR letter, demanding an additional ₹20 lakh. The total deal was stated to be ₹28 lakh. The complainant claims to have delivered ₹20 lakh Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -4- to the accused at the Chandigarh office. Thereafter, despite assurances that the visa would arrive within 15–20 days, no visa was issued. When the complainant attempted to contact Harpreet Singh, he was unable to do so; instead, the office manager answered the calls on the number previously given by Harpreet and refused to provide Harpreet’s personal contact details. On repeated visits, the complainant found the office closed. Upon further inquiries, he learnt that several cases had already been registered against Harpreet Singh and his manager for cheating. The complainant later came to know that Harpreet Singh had travelled to Dubai and was residing there with co-accused Kuldip Kaur. Complainant submitted that Harpreet Singh, in connivance with Harbans Kaur and Kuldip Kaur, cheated him of ₹25 lakh under the guise of providing immigration services. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant sought registration of a case and initiation of legal action against the accused persons. 4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submits that the true genesis of the dispute inter se the parties has not been fully disclosed by the complainant, Taranjeet Singh. 5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari (CRM-M-53266-2025) submits that the petitioner was employed with High Rise Immigration Consultancy, a firm operating from Phase-5, Mohali. It is stated that one Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha is the Managing Director of the said consultancy firm, in which the complainant, Taranjit Singh @ Taran Shergill, is an active partner. To substantiate this assertion, learned counsel has drawn attention to an advertisement issued on behalf of High Rise Immigration Consultancy, Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -5- wherein the firm publicly proclaims its ability to fulfil “dreams of foreign settlement.” The said advertisement prominently reflects the mobile number belonging to the complainant, Taranjit Singh @ Taran Shergill, thereby demonstrating his active participation and involvement in the operations of the consultancy business. 6 Counsel contends that Bikramjit Singh, brother of Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha, had lodged FIR No. 297 dated 17.10.2024 under Sections 305 and 331(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sohana, Mohali, pertaining to the theft of property/cash from the office of High Rise Consultancy Immigration Services. He submits that the narrative set out by Bikramjit Singh specifically records that the present petitioner, Harpreet Singh Hari, was working in the said consultancy firm. It is further alleged therein that suspicion had arisen that the office door had been deliberately left open by the petitioner, thereby facilitating the theft of cash amounting to approximately ₹20–25 lakhs. 7 Counsel further submits that the petitioner was discharged in the aforesaid case on the basis of an application moved by the SHO, Police Station Sohana, which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohali, vide order dated 25.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner travelled to Dubai and commenced work with Kuldeep Kaur (petitioner in CRM-M-61866-2025). It is contended that Kuldeep Kaur had entered into financial transactions with Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha for the purpose of expanding the immigration consultancy business and setting up an office in Dubai as well. 8 Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -6- petitioner Kuldeep Kaur in CRM-M-61866-2025, submits that after Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha failed to honour the commitments made to her, she demanded return of the amounts invested by her. He contends that, in response, Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha issued two cheques amounting in all to 1,07,000 dirhams. Upon presentation, both cheques were dishonoured. In the proceedings initiated by the petitioner in Dubai, a restraint order has since been passed against Inderbir Singh Badesha @ Kinderbir Singh Badesha. Counsel contends that it is against this backdrop of financial dealings and subsequent strained relations between the complainant and the present petitioners that the instant FIR has been engineered and registered. 9 Counsel contends that the very substratum of the allegations is that the complainant is stated to have handed over ₹25 lakhs in cash to the petitioners for securing a PR visa for settlement in Canada. It is argued that such an allegation is inherently improbable, for it is unlikely that a person who is himself engaged in the business of immigration consultancy would entrust such a substantial amount in cash to the petitioners for procuring his own immigration. 10 Counsel for the petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari submits that, pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2025, he has joined the investigation and that no recovery or further investigation qua the petitioner is pending. It is further submitted that petitioner Kuldeep Kaur has not joined the investigation as no interim protection had been extended to her. 11 Learned State Counsel does not dispute that petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari has already joined the investigation and that the investigation, Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -7- insofar as he is concerned, stands concluded. It is further submitted that petitioner Kuldeep Kaur has yet to join the investigation. He also submits that petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari is not required for any further investigative purpose. 12 Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that there are specific allegations that the complainant handed over a total sum of ₹25 lakhs in cash to the petitioners in two instalments, ₹5 lakhs initially and ₹20 lakhs subsequently for the purpose of securing his safe travel to Canada and that upon the petitioners’ failure to deliver on the assurances extended, the present FIR came to be registered. 13 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the present petition. 14 An ardent attempt has been made by learned counsel appearing for High Rise Consultancy Services, however, on being confronted with the documents that are already placed on record, counsel fairly concedes that such an argument may not be available to him at this stage. While acknowledging the fairness on the part of the counsel assisting this Court, it is noticed that the complainant has not come clean either before the Investigating Agency or before this Court. A vigorous effort was made to portray a particular narrative of association between the parties, yet that version stands wholly belied by the numerous documents on record which clearly reveal a long-standing series of financial dealings and a subsequent breakdown of relations between the parties over time. 15 Registration of FIR No. 297 dated 17.10.2024 under Sections 305 and 331(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sohana, Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -8- Mohali against Harpreet Singh Hari, as well as his subsequent discharge by the competent Court, is not disputed. In the totality of the circumstances and in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent-State, upon instructions from the assisting police official, that the custodial interrogation of petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari is no longer required for the purposes of further investigation, the anticipatory bail earlier granted to him vide order dated 22.09.2025 is made absolute. 16 Now adverting to the specific assertion of the complainant that a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was handed over in cash to the petitioners, it merits observation that the statutory scheme under the Income Tax Act, 1961, prohibits cash transactions beyond the limits prescribed therein. The law mandates that transactions of such magnitude must necessarily be effected through recognised banking channels. In this backdrop, the allegation of payment of Rs.25 lakhs in cash, bereft of any document placed on record, becomes inherently suspect and is a circumstance that must weigh against the plausibility of the complainant’s version. 17 Besides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had sounded caution regarding claims premised on substantial cash transactions, which inherently pose serious difficulties in verification and authentication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, has observed that where a party asserts to having engaged in a cash transaction beyond the statutorily prohibited limit, such assertion must be reported to the Income Tax Department. 18 In the present case, the complainant asserts to having paid a sum Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -9- of Rs.25 lakhs in cash to the petitioners. In view of the statutory prohibition on high-value cash transactions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and keeping in mind the mandate issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said claim necessarily warrants reference to the Income Tax Authorities for appropriate scrutiny. 19 Hence, in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar and Another, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Department of Income Tax, apprising it of the aforesaid cash transaction made by the complainant Taranjit Singh, so as to enable the said authority to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 20 In view of the aforesaid, CRM-M-53266-2025 filed by the petitioner Harpreet Singh Hari is allowed and order dated 22.09.2025 is confirmed. 21 So far as CRM-M-61866-2025 filed by the petitioner Kuldeep Kaur seeking anticipatory bail is concerned, the case is adjourned to 09.02.2026. 22 In the meantime, the petitioner Kuldeep Kaur is directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency. In the event of petitioner joining investigation, she shall be admitted to interim bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53266-2025 (O&M) and connected case -10- 23 A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file(s). December 08, 2025. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Printed from counselvise.com RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.12.17 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "