[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar Alias Happy Sohal vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105+218 CRM-M-15742-2025
Decided on:03.04.2025
Naresh Kumar @ Happy Sohal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CRM-M-61243-2024
Decided on:03.04.2025
Mendhi Erika Beaslay ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Present: Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-15742
15742-2025.
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, and
Mr. Rahul, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CRM-M-61243-2024.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this common order, two petitions bearing CRM
CRM-M
M-
15742-2025
2025 & CRM-M-61243-2024
CRM 2024 are being disposed of as common facts
and question of law are involved in both of them. However, for the sake of
convenience,
e, the facts are being extracted from CRM
CRM-M-15742-2025.
2. Prayer in the present petitions, both filed under Section 482 of the
BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
petitioners in a case FIR
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -2-
No.262 dated 02.12.2023, registered under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC, at
Police Station Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali.
2. The facts enumerated from the record are that complainant
Gagandeep Singh filed a complaint on 04.08.2023, on which an enquiry
nquiry was
carried out by the Deputy Captain of Police (Local), District SAS Nagar
Mohali and on the basis of this enquiry
nquiry report, the FIR was lodged. As per the
inquiry conducted in the complaint filed by complainant Gagandeep Singh, it
was found that complainant
complainant Gagandeep Singh got acquainted with Happy
Sohal, the petitioner in CRM-M-15742-2025
CRM 2025, and it was told by Happy
y Sohal
to the complainant that he had NRI girls to perform contract marriage an
and he
could arrange a NRI girl for him with whom, after per
performing contract
marriage, he could be sent and settled abroad. Happy Sohal had introduced the
complainant to Rachna and Lakhwinder Singh, who asked for a fee of Rs.5 lacs
for arranging an NRI girl. Thereafter, Happy Sohal and his accompli
accomplices further
introduced
roduced complainant Gagandeep Singh to R
Raminder Beaslay @ Reema
Beaslay and Heera Singh and made him to believe that their daughter Mendhi
Erika Beaslay, petitioner in CRM-M-61243-
CRM -2024,
2024, is settled in Germany, with
whom they would arrange contract marriage of the complainant and then he
would settle in Germany.. The deal was struck for Rs.27 lacs. On 07.09.2020,
a photograph of `Jaimala’ was clicked of the complainant with Mendhi Erika
Beaslay and the complainant was asked to get the VISA of Romania and after
aft
staying there about one year, he was promised to be sent to Germany.
However, petitioners and their accomplices
accomplices kept on delaying the same on one
pretext or the other.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -3-
3. Ultimately, when the complainant found himself cheated of
Rs.26,35,000/ he filed
Rs.26,35,000/-, led the complaint, which was enquired
nquired into by the
investigating agencies and on finding substance in the allegations made therein,
the FIR was lodged. The investigating agencies issued notices to the
petitioners and their co-accused
co for joining investigat
investigation; however, they did not
come forward. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have approached the Court
of learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali for grant of
concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said
relief
elief was declined to them vide orders dated 12.03.2025 and dated 25.11.2024
respectively. Hence, aggrieved against the said orders, the petitioner
petitioners are
before this Court by of filing the present petitions
petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have ve
vehemently
hemently contended
that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner Mendhi Erika
Beaslay and the complainant had taken place with the consent of both the sides
and Raminder
aminder Beaslay @ Reema Beaslay had given Rs.4 lacs in Roka
ceremony and Rs.5 lacs as dowry/gift to the complainant. However, the
complainant demanded Rs.15 lacs as was allegedly decided between the
parties. He contended that, thereafter, the complaina
complainant
nt agreed on the assurance
that Rs.15 lacs would be given to him after sale of the plot by Raminder
Beaslay @ Reema Beaslay, mother of petitioner Mendhi Erika Beaslay
Beaslay.. It is
submitted that the marriage was registered in Delhi. He submitted that the
complainant
ainant and petitioner Mendhi Erika Beaslay lived with co-accused
accused
Raminder Beaslay @ Reema Beaslay in Narela, New Delhi and every day,, the
complainant kept on pressurizing petitioner Mendhi Erika Beaslay to go to
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -4-
Germany for settling there. It is submitted that it is the complainant who
started harassing petitioner Mendhi Erika Beaslay for settling in Germany. He
submits that the complainant had clandestinely married petitioner Mendhi
Erika Beaslay only with the intention to settle in Germany. They denied of
having received any amount, as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted
that the allegations made in the FIR are totally baseless and, thus, no prima
facie case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner
petitioners.. Thus, it is contended
that the petitioners
ioners deserve to be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra,, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail
applicationss and has drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed by
way of affidavit of Karan Singh Sandhu, PP
PPS,
S, DSP, Sub Division Kharar-1,
Kharar
District SAS Nagar, Mohali. He contended that the FIR in the present case has
been registered against the petitioners
petitioner and the co
co-accused after conducting
preliminary inquiry into the complainant received from complainant, namely,
Gagandeep Singh in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, District
SAS Nagar, Mohali. It is contended that during preliminary enquiry, the
allegations levelled against the petitioners were prima facie substantiated and it
was found that it was petitioner Happy Sohal who had arranged meeting of the
complainant with Raminder Beaslay @ Reema Beaslay and Heera Singh, who
further assured the complainant that they would charg
chargee Rs.30 lacs to arrange
the said contract marriage. They convinced the complainant that Reema
Beaslay’s daughter Mendhi Erika Beaslay is a permanent resident of Germany
and the complainant would be settled there after performing the contract
marriage. The
The ring ceremony was performed on 07.09.2020 at complainant’s
village Bareta. The complainant was suggested for obtaining VISA of
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -5-
Romania and after staying there for one year, he could be sent to Germany.
The complainant was found to be defrauded for an aamount
mount to the tune of
Rs.26,35,000/ on the pretext of sending him to Germany by entering into a
Rs.26,35,000/-
contract marriage. The details of Rs.26 lacs, given by the complainant to the
accused persons, as found during the enquiry, are as follows:-
Rs.2 lacs cash Happy
ppy Sohal
Rs.14 lacs cash Raminder Beaslay @ Reema
Rs.10 lacs Raminder Beaslay @ Reema
6. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioners along with co
co-accused,
accused, in a
well hatched conspiracy, defrauded the complainant on the pretext of sending
him to Germany by entering into the contract marriage. Neither the money was
returned to the complainant nor he was sent abroad. It is counsel for the State
who has produced some videos of petitioner Mendhi Erika Beaslay to
substantiate his contention that the petitioners of hatching a conspiracy, which
is evident from their demeanour in the videos. He submits that despit
despitee various
efforts having been made, the petitioners could not be arrested and, thus, for
the free and fair investigation, their custodial interrogation is essential. He
submits that both the petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
available record, it is deciphered that the FIR in the present case has been
registered after carrying out a preliminary enquiry in the complaint filed by
complainant Gagandeep Singh. During preliminary
preliminary enquiry, it was found that
the complainant was introduced by petitioner Happy Sohal to his accomplices
and he was assured for permanent settlement in Germany by entering into a
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -6-
contract marriage with an NRI girl. He was assured that NRI girls are
a
available with them and on performing the contract marriage, he could settle
abroad. The complainant was charged for an amount of Rs.26,35,000/-.
Rs.26,35,000/
However, after performing the contract marriage and charging the money, the
complainant found himself defrauded.
defrauded. The petitioners, despite having been
issued various notices by the police, neither joined investigation nor they
the
were/are traceable. Needless to say, the
he cases of this type of nature
nature, where the
gullible citizens are being trapped for sending them abroad, are on rise.
8. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters
are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under:
under:-
“482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
1. When any person hass reason to believe that he may be arrested
on an accusation of having committed a non
non-bailable
bailable offence, he
may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a
direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit,
direct that in the event
nt of such arrest, he shall be released on
bail.
2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction
under sub-section
section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it
may think fit, including
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available
for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person
son acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without
the previous permission of the Court;
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -7-
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
sub
section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted
under that section.”
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil
Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under:
under:-
“6. We find force in the submis
submission
sion of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning
a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section
438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected
person iss of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been concealed.
Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person
knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre
pre-arrest
arrest bail during
durin
the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to
third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument
can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to
presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in
task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as
offenders.”
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632
1632,, has time
and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to
take into consideration the factors like gravity of ooffence,
ffence, chances of accused
tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc.
The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society
as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which sh
should
ould be
exercised in the extraordinary circumstances.
10. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is
apparent that the complicity of the petitioners
petitioners has been prima facie established.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050922
CRM-M-15742
15742-2025
CRM-M-61243
61243-2024 -8-
The investigation is at its threshold. Thus,
Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioners at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioners
petitioner do not qualify for exercising the
extraordinary
traordinary power by this Court in their favour. Resultantly, both the
petitions, being devoid of any merit,
merit are hereby dismissed.
12. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
case
13. A copy of this orderr be placed on the file of another connected
case.
April 03,, 2025 (Rajesh Bhardwaj) vinod* Judge
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES
Whether Reportable: NO/YES
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:31:31 :::
[ad_2]
Source link