Jashanpreet Singh @ Waris Chouhan vs. State Of Ut Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Jashanpreet Singh @ Waris Chouhan, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. He was implicated in FIR No.99 dated 06.09.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. The petitioner claimed he was an employee, initially a Senior Team Leader and Counselor, and later a Branch Manager, at a Visa Support Services (VSS) firm. He asserted that the GST registration showed only two partners, Satbir Singh and Vikramjeet Singh, and that the main accused, Satbir Singh, was already in custody. The petitioner argued his role was limited to collecting money and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's appointment as Senior Team Leader and Counselor, and later as Branch Manager, was evident from the documents presented, the extent of his connivance with the co-accused, Satbir Singh and Vikramjeet Singh, in committing the crime was a matter for adjudication by the trial court. However, the Court was of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner might not be required in the present case. Without commenting further on the merits, the Court allowed the petition and granted the petitioner anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The Investigating Officer was permitted to call the petitioner for investigation upon issuing a written notice, and the petitioner was directed to abide by the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and forgery registered against him in FIR No.99 dated 06.09.2024. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was merely an employee of the VSS firm, holding positions like Senior Team Leader, Counselor, and later Branch Manager, as evidenced by his appointment letter and identity card. He highlighted that the GST registration listed only two partners, Satbir Singh and Vikramjeet Singh, implying his lack of direct involvement in the firm's ownership or fraudulent activities. Furthermore, he argued that the main accused, Satbir Singh, was already arrested, and his own role was confined to collecting money, not benefiting from any cheated amount, thus negating the need for custodial interrogation. He relied on his appointment letter (Annexure P-1), GST Registration form (Annexure P-2), and identity card (Annexure P-3). Respondent's arguments: The State of U.T. Chandigarh opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had misrepresented his role as Branch Manager and had transferred a significant amount of money into his own account. The State also mentioned that similar cases had been registered against the petitioner, suggesting his deeper involvement and warranting dismissal of the petition.