Rajinder Kumar @ Rohin Malik Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Rajinder Kumar @ Rohin Malik Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.61 dated 09.06.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC, 1860 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's version that he is a farmer who availed a loan fails to inspire confidence, since there is no reason why he would be in possession of the passports of the complainant.

Ratio / Principle

An offer to make payment cannot be used as a bargain on the discretionary power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail.

Key takeaways

The Court refused to accept the petitioner's renewed offer of payment as prima facie lacking in bona fide and devised only to secure interim relief.ratio¶10
Despite reference to Mediation and Conciliation Centre with stay of arrest, the petitioner neither appeared before the Mediation Centre nor before the Court on subsequent dates nor took steps to show willingness to settle.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S.482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — FIR No.61 dated 09.06.2025, PS Sadar Pathankot, under Ss.406, 420 IPC, 1860 and S.24 Emigration Act, 1983 — allegation that petitioner allured complainant to send him and his family to America via Dubai, Suriname, Guatemala or Mexico for Rs.1 crore; Rs.20,00,000 taken as advance (Rs.7,00,000 cash, Rs.13,00,000 bank transfer); fake tickets and visas sent; only Rs.4,00,000 returned, Rs.16,00,000 retained with original passports — settlement cheques of Rs.10,00,000 (dishonoured) and Rs.9,00,000 issued — Held: an offer to make payment cannot be used as a bargain on the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail; offer refused as prima facie lacking bona fide and devised only to secure interim relief; petitioner skipped mediation and court dates, interim protection vacated 03.02.2026; farmer/loan explanation disbelieved in view of possession of complainant's passports; specific allegations corroborated by prosecution evidence; passport recovery unexplained; prima facie involvement established; no compelling circumstances for anticipatory bail — relying on Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 (proceedings in anticipatory bail not a means of securing release of money) — petition dismissed. (V.B. Singh Bhardwaj, J., oral) (Para 10-13)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

102

CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2026

Rajinder Kuma r @ Rohin Malik ...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr . Ashish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punj a b. Mr . S.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

*** ** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-27112-2025

All o wed, as prayed for, subject to a ll just exceptions.

Main case

Th e instant petition has been file d under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Naga r ik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner i n case bearing FIR No.61 dated 09.06.2025 registered under Sections 406, 4 20 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act , 1983 at Police Station Sadar P a thankot, District Pathankot. 2. As per the FIR, the complainan t came in contact with the petitioner, who allured him for sending the complainant, his wife and daughter to A m erica through an alternative r oute via Dubai, Suriname, Guatemala or M exico and demanded a sum of Rs.1 crore for the same. An amount of Rs . 20,00,000/- was sought for as advance out of which Rs.7,00,000/- w as given in cash and Rs.13,00,000/- was given by way of

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M)

bank transfer. Fake tickets are alleged to have been sent by the petitioner alongwith fake visas to the complainant. The complainant and his family members were thus never sent abroad. The petitioner is also alleged to have not returned the amount. Only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was handed over. The passports of the complainant and his family members were retained by the petitioner. The photocopies of the fake visas and tickets sent by the petitioner were shared by the complainant with the police agency whereupon the FIR was registered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had infact taken a loan from the complainant and could not repay the same on time. The events did not transpire in the manner as alleged. He further contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the money and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

A status report dated 05.08.2025 by way of an affidavit of Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Pathankot had been filed on behalf of the State. Copy of the same thereof stood furnished to the counsel for the petitioner as well.

It is specifically set out in the aforesaid status report that the petitioner had sent a PPR (Passport Request) on 18.11.2024 by WhatsApp and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The complainant informed the petitioner that the remaining amount would be paid only after receipt of the visa, whereupon the petitioner forwarded the photocopies of Canadian Visitor Visas for the complainant and his daughter in January, 2025. On verification, the visas were found to be forged. Accordingly investigation was initiated by the Economic Offences Wing of DPO, Pathankot vide

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M)

complaint No.388-PGD dated 18.02.2025. Notices were issued, the parties joined investigation and the investigating officer came to a conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the aforesaid amount but returned only Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner retained Rs.16,00,000/- and original passports of the complainant, his wife and daughter thereby committing the offences as alleged.

It has further transpired from the documents on record and the proceedings recorded that the original passports of the complainant and his family members were handed over by the petitioner to them. The version of the petitioner that he is a farmer and has availed a loan thus fails to inspire any confidence as there is no reason as to why the petitioner would be in possession of the passports of the complainant.

Further, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment.

Counsel for the complainant, however, contends that initially the petitioner had entered into a settlement and a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was given towards discharge of liability, however, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, the petitioner issued another cheque of Rs.9,00,000/-. He further contends that the petitioner has no intention of paying the money as he does not have any money in his account.

This Court has also perused the order dated 08.09.2025 wherein it is specifically recorded that the petitioner handed over 05 original passports to the counsel for the complainant. It is further evident from perusal of order dated 19.12.2025 that taking note of the prayer made by the

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4

102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M)

petitioner for seeking settlement of the dispute, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and arrest of the petitioner was stayed. The petitioner however chose neither to appear before the Mediation Centre nor before the Court on subsequent dates or took any steps to show his willingness to settle the dispute. Consequently, vide order dated 03.02.2026, the interim granted by this Court on 19.12.2025 was vacated. On the subsequent date, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, a similar offer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for making the payment.

I am of the opinion that an offer to make the payment cannot be used as a bargain on the discretionary power of this Court to grant anticipatory bail. In case, the petitioner was genuine about entering into a settlement and to amicably resolve the issue, ample opportunities were made available to him prior to registration of FIR and even thereafter and also before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. This Court thus refuses to accept the aforesaid offer made by the petitioner as it is prima facie found lacking in bona fide and is only being devised to secure interim relief for himself.

The Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another’ reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 observed that the proceedings in anticipatory bail are not a means of securing release of money.

It is noticed that there are specific allegations and which such allegations stand corroborated by the evidence collected by the respondent. It clearly prima facie establishes that the petitioner had allured the

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5

102 CRM-M-37598-2025(O&M)

complainant into parting with a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for sending him and his family abroad and that thereafter he forged the tickets and the visas to fleece more money. Besides, recovery of passports was effected from the petitioner and he has failed to explain how and under what circumstances did he come in possession of passports of all the family members of the complainant if he was not involved in the emigration activities. The documents show a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence, as alleged.

There are no such compelling circumstances or overwhelming evidence as would persuade this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed .

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

26.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.05 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document