Kamaldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18604) on 15 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Kamaldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18604) on 15 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:18604]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3075/2025

Kamaldeep Singh S/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Santpura, PS and Tehsil Sangaria, Dist Hanumangarh
(Raj).
                                                      ----Petitioner
                              Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                   ----Respondent
                          Connected With
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3076/2025
Puneeta Malli D/o Hari Krishan Malli, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
125 Super Speed Building Geen Park, Street No. 6, Behind Bus
Stand, Jalandhar, Punjab.
                                                      ----Petitioner
                              Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Dr. Kshamendra Mathur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
For Complainant(s)        :     Mr. N.K. Sharma for complainant
Present in person         :     Mr. Devendra Kumar, I.O., P.S.
                                Sangaria, District Hanumangarh


    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order
15/04/2025

This anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of BNSS

(438 of Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners apprehending

their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.05/2025 registered at

Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for offences under

Sections 61(2)(a), 316(2) & 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) & 338 of the

BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the

story of the prosecution, complainant – Mamta Rani, who is

(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18604] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3075/2025]

resident of Sangaria, stated in her complaint that accused

petitioner Puneeta is the owner of the office titled as Fateh

Consultant situated at Bhagatpura Road, Sangaria, which provides

immigration services to the Indian citizens. The accused

petitioners contacted the complainant and stated that head office

of their office is at Jalandhar for emigrating Indian citizens to

foreign. The complainant alongwith her friends met the accused

petitioners in their office – Fateh Consultant at Sangaria, where

accused petitioners offered her to emigrate to Germany for

employment with the assurance that the prospective company at

Germany would pay a salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month to her.

The accused petitioners also promised the complainant to arrange

citizenship of Germany thereafter and for this purpose, they

demanded Rs.8,50,000/- from her. Thereupon, the complainant

initially paid of Rs.98,000/- to the petitioner Kamaldeep for this

purpose, however, on account of failure in interview for job at

Germany, the complainant could not go there. Thereafter the

accused petitioners offered her to emigrate to Azerbaijan and

demand Rs.6,50,000/-. The complainant again deposited

Rs.1,89,000/- in the bank account of petitioner – Kamaldeep and

gave Rs.2,00,000/- case to petitioner – Puneeta and in total she

paid Rs.3,89,000/-. Despite receiving the money, the accused

petitioners did not fulfill the aforesaid promise made to the

complainant and cheated her.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

accused petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present

case. The accused petitioners are having a valid license to run

(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18604] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3075/2025]

their business. The matter is with regard to the money i.e.

Rs.15,80,000/- owed from the complainant. The FIR has been

lodged on the false grounds and with an ulterior motive on the

extraneous considerations. There is a civil dispute between the

parties which has been given a color of criminal case.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the

bail applications and submitted that as per the case of the

prosecution, the accused petitioners are involved in the illegal

business of emigrating the Indian citizens to the foreign countries

and in the present case the role of the present petitioners in

commission of the crime is very clear, as per the allegations of the

complainant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case;

considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the

petitioners, which are related to the internal security of our

country; involvement of the accused-petitioners in the alleged

offences; this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-

petitioners at this stage.

Both the bail applications filed under Section 482 of BNSS

(438 Cr.P.C.) are accordingly, dismissed at this stage.

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
230-231-Hanuman/-

(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)