Sarfaraz Ahamad vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the petitioner's actual custody period of over five months, the stage of the trial where charge had not yet been framed and was likely to take considerable time, and the limited role attributed to the petitioner. The Court noted that the principal allegations were directed against the petitioner's brother, Shoaib Sheikh. The reasoning was that these factors, combined with the fact that the trial would be protracted, made it appropriate to grant bail. The operative direction was that the petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court also made it clear that the petitioner should not threaten or influence any prosecution witness and that the observations were not an expression on the merits of the case, leaving the trial court to decide based on the available material.

Facts

The petitioner, Sarfaraz Ahamad, sought regular bail in FIR No. 62 dated 15.05.2025, registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Dore Naik, who alleged that the petitioner and others, operating as Migrate Expert Solution, promised overseas migration for 23 individuals for ₹2,00,000 per person plus embassy fees. The complainant paid ₹54,55,995 in cash and online transfers. Only forged visas for two individuals were provided. Cheques issued for refund were dishonoured as bank accounts were frozen. The petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2025 and claims to have served over five months in custody. He is also on bail in a previous FIR under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 62 dated 15.05.2025, considering the period of custody, stage of trial, and his alleged role? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was arrested on 13.06.2025 and had undergone more than five months of actual custody. He contended that the principal transaction was conducted by his brother, Shoaib Sheikh, the proprietor of Migrate Expert Solution, and his own role was limited to introducing the complainant to Shoaib. He further submitted that the case is triable by a Magistrate, no further recovery is expected from him, and the trial is likely to take considerable time as it was listed for charge framing on 24.11.2025. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner is the brother of the principal accused, Shoaib Sheikh, and that payments were made to the company's account based on the petitioner's assurances. However, it was not disputed that the petitioner had undergone more than five months of custody and no further recovery was to be effected from him. The State also conceded that charge had not yet been framed and the trial was likely to take considerable time.