Navpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11 dated 20.05.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 335, 340, 61(2), 111 of BNS, 2023 and Section 66 (D) of IT Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Malerkotla.

¶13

On a complaint submitted by one Simranpreet Singh, the FIR in question was registered, the contents of which are as under:-

¶14

“Sir, I request that I am Simranpreet Singh son of Sukhjinder Singh resident of village Bhogiwal, district Malerkotla. That I saw a post on the Instagram page in the name of Moon Immigration dated 28 January 2025. On which his contact number in the foreign +18046601004 and in India 8556911602 was given. That I called +18046601004 and he told his name Mandeep Singh Grewal and said that he is living abroad and works for getting a Canadian work permit visa. When we asked for his meeting, he said that he is living in Canada and works only online. He told me the whole process and he had done

¶15

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-32472-2026 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

a deal for Canada work permit for 26 lakhs. In this, I and my relative Taranvir Singh son of Balvir Singh resident of village Khurd, district Malerkotla was there. Then we sent him copies of all the documents and we also paid online about 14000 embassy fees for both of us through our credit cards and then he got conducted medical of both of us. And then after 10 days he informed us, that our visa has been sanctioned, hence told us to submit the passport to VFS at Chandigarh and we have submitted our passport. He sent us DBS bank account number 8861010000008273. And we both have transferred rupees 26 lakhs from each of us in this account through RTGS. And after 45 days our passports came empty and in which the passport were sent with a letter and it was written that we do not have any record of you and I have called Mandeep Singh Grewal many times and he did not answer my call and he blocked my number too. It is requested to you sir, appropriate action should be taken against the accused.”

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is in fact Mandeep Singh Grewal and that it was he who had been having conversation with the complainant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 9 months, no recovery has to be made from him; co-accused Paramjeet Kaur had been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 06.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-65526-2025; final report has already been submitted; out of 18 witnesses, no witness has been examined as of now, and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶21

Per contra , learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, 7 other cases

¶22

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-32472-2026 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

having already been registered against him of similar nature. He, however, concedes that he has been in custody for the last 9 months and 7 days. It is also not in dispute that final report has been submitted and that no witness has been examined as of now after charges having been framed.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for last 9 months and 7 days. Final report already stands submitted, therefore, no recovery has to be made. Trial will still take a sufficiently long time, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶28

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶29

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶30

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶31

July 03, 2026 Mani Kumar

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶33

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Navpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Abhijeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Deva Alias Golu Vs State of Punjab

Simranjeet Singh Alias Simranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep and Another Vs State of Haryana