The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Lehna Singh and another in a second bail petition arising from an alleged ₹35 lakh immigration fraud case. The Court ruled that a compromise reached between the accused and the complainant after the earlier rejection of bail did not amount to a fresh circumstance warranting reconsideration, particularly when the previous rejection had already attained finality before the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in FIR No. 22 dated January 24, 2026. The FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014.
According to the complainant, Tega Singh, the accused allegedly induced him to pay ₹35 lakh by promising to facilitate the legal immigration of his son, Gurpinder Singh, to the United States. The complainant alleged that neither was the promised visa arranged nor was the money returned. Instead, his son was allegedly sent to Thailand, where he stayed for about one month, and later to Dubai for nearly two months. Based on these allegations, the FIR was registered.
Petitioners Relied on Subsequent Compromise
The petitioners argued that there had been a significant change in circumstances since their earlier anticipatory bail petitions were rejected. They relied on a compromise dated May 30, 2026, executed between the parties, and contended that in view of the settlement, their custodial detention would serve no useful purpose.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the earlier anticipatory bail petition had been dismissed on merits and that no fresh circumstance existed to justify a second petition. It further submitted that the petitioners were attempting to bypass the earlier orders of both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the alleged compromise could not be treated as a new circumstance for reconsidering anticipatory bail.
Referring to the earlier order, the Court observed,
"The offence in question does not merely involve financial deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust."
The Court had earlier noted that alleged immigration frauds exploit vulnerable people aspiring to go abroad and therefore require strict judicial scrutiny.
The Bench further observed,
"The alleged compromise cannot be treated as a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail."
The Court also noted that petitioner No. 2 had earlier challenged the rejection of anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court but did not succeed. While declining interference, the Supreme Court had granted him liberty to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, directing that such an application be considered on its own merits. Instead of following that course, the petitioners filed another anticipatory bail petition before the High Court.
Decision
Holding that no fresh circumstance had arisen after the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail, the High Court concluded that the second petition was not maintainable. The Court observed that the earlier rejection had attained finality up to the Supreme Court and that petitioner No. 2 had failed to avail the liberty granted by the apex court to surrender and seek regular bail. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The Court also clarified that the observations made in the order would not influence the investigation or the trial, and that both the investigating agency and the trial court should proceed independently in accordance with law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Lehna Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number: CRM-M-33912-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: July 8, 2026
-300x169.webp)
