Punjab and Haryana High Court denies pre-arrest bail to woman, imposes Rs 50,000 fine for ‘misplaced adventurism’

Justice Sumeet Goel noted that there are direct and specific allegations regarding cheating the complainant on the pretext of sending the son of the complainant abroad.

The court further added that it cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on transnational human trafficking. “Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence,” Justice Goel added.

Elements of human trafficking

• The high court pointed out that cases of this nature involve vulnerable individuals who are lured with false promises of lawful migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation.
• The court further added that these cases fall within the ambit of organised human trafficking and require strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence.
• Human trafficking under the garb of immigration consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon the desperation and dreams of unsuspecting citizens.
• It was emphasised that the courts must remain vigilant and ensure that such rackets are not encouraged by leniency at the pre-trial stage.
• The high court noted that the fraudulent inducement for illegal migration reflects criminal intent and constitutes a serious affront to human dignity and national interest.
• Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens seeking opportunities abroad.
• It was also pointed out by the court that these fraudulent activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems.
• The court emphasised that the individuals involved in such organised deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.

Allegations of cheating

The case stemmed from allegations against the petitioner, Kamalpreet Malhotra and one Ankita, who allegedly induced the complainant, Karamjeet Singh, on the pretext of facilitating the process of sending his son abroad.

It was alleged that on such inducement, they received a total sum of Rs 18 lakh from the complainant. However, it was claimed by the complainant that they cheated as neither arranged any visa for the son, nor was the said amount refunded.

The high court noted that upon these sets of allegations, the instant FIR was registered against the accused persons.

Custodial interrogation, punitive measure

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Tarun K Sharma argued that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations levelled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit.

It was further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. He added that the petitioner was earlier granted interim protection by the trial court, but could not join the investigation due to a communication gap with his counsel, and the subsequent dismissal of bail was on technical grounds and not on merits.

Sharma further argued that no specific date or time has been mentioned in the FIR in question in respect of the cheque, which was allegedly given by the complainant and asserted that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence.

Cheated complainant, serious offence

Representing the state, deputy attorney general Hemant Aggarwal opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the cheating by the petitioner had caused substantial financial and emotional distress to the complainant.

Mehta asserted that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR and the complainant had paid a substantial amount to the petitioner and his co-accused in order to send his son abroad, but the petitioner, instead, cheated the complainant. They neither sent the son of the complainant abroad nor did they return the amount in question to the complainant.

He emphasised that, considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy, identify the co-accused and recover the ill-got money.