Australian dream turns nightmare: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies pre-arrest bail in Rs 50 lakh kidnapping case

“As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation has to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required. Therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said in its March 25 order.

Australian dream, kidnapping, Rs 50 lakh demand

The matter dates back to when Harjinder Singh met Kaur, who runs a travel agency, seeking to send his son Robinpreet Singh to Australia. As per Harjinder’s complaint, Kaur said she would send his son directly to Australia on a flight and that the total cost would be Rs 27.75 lakh.

It was further alleged that Kaur told the father that his son’s flight was scheduled for October 3, 2025, from Amritsar airport and that they should reach the airport carrying the son’s original passport, Aadhaar card, and PAN card.

However, the father stated that they came to know later that Kaur was sending his son through connecting flights with stopovers and not through direct flights.

The father, in his complaint, mentioned that his son called him and informed me that he had reached Delhi, then Kolkata and later Dubai Airport. During that time, the son allegedly informed his father that he had a two-hour layover there and that his next flight to Tehran was scheduled soon.

The same day, as per Harjinder, his nephew got a WhatsApp call claiming that the youth was in custody, and demanding Rs 50 lakh to save his life. The family said they paid two instalments of Rs 12 lakh each for his safe return.

Subsequently, on October 7, 2025, around 12 pm, a WhatsApp call came from one Kritika’s mobile number saying that she needed Rs 25,000 to book his son’s ticket. However, the son had not yet returned to the country with his family.

‘Acts in connivance with petitioner’

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that the perusal of the First Information Report (FIR) revealed that not only did the petitioner receive a huge amount of money on a promise to send the complainant’s son abroad, but the son was also kidnapped and threatened with his life if Rs 50 lakh more was not paid.
• The complainant paid Rs 24 lakh to the kidnappers for the release of his son.
• The high court found that all this had happened in connivance with the petitioner.
• Since the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the high court pointed out the custodial interrogation of the petitioner as necessary.
• Consequently, the high court denied anticipatory bail to the woman.

‘Accused filed complaint herself’

Appearing for the woman, advocate Vaibhav Narang argued that the petitioner, who is a woman, has been falsely implicated in the present case since she is not involved in kidnapping or extortion.

He added that the petitioner herself filed a separate complaint against one Kritika, who was acting upon the instructions of the actual kidnappers.

Narang emphasised that she also provided all details of Kritika, etc, to the police. He sought anticipatory bail for his client, pointing out that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

‘Paid instalments, son not released yet’

Additional advocate general Harkanwar Jeet Singh filed a status report in December 2025 and contended that the petitioner had undertaken to send the son of the complainant abroad on receipt of Rs 27.75 lakh.

It was also mentioned that despite the complainant’s son being sent abroad, he was kidnapped and held hostage by unknown criminals who were in connivance with the petitioner.

The two instalments of Rs 12 lakh each (a total of Rs 24 lakh) were paid by the complainant for the release of his son but it was argued by the counsel that the son of the complainant was not released.

He also added that, on the instructions of the petitioner, the complainant’s son also transferred Rs 7.25 lakh through Google Pay.