₹45 Lakh US Visa Scam, Cancer Patient Duped & Fake Settlement Plea: P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Immigration Fraud Case
Case Name: Subhash and Another v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-9458-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to the accused in an alleged immigration fraud involving ₹45 lakhs and gold, holding that economic offences involving deception and cheating stand on a different footing and require thorough custodial investigation. The Court held that allegations disclosed prima facie dishonest intention from inception and that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and recover the cheated amount.
Summary: The petition before the High Court sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No.389 dated 03.11.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983 at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, who was stated to be suffering from cancer, was induced by the petitioners and co-accused to part with approximately ₹45 lakhs along with gold ornaments on the assurance that they would facilitate migration of his son and daughter-in-law to the United States. It was alleged that despite receiving the money, the accused failed to fulfill their promise and later kept extending false assurances regarding repayment.
The FIR further alleged that the petitioners attempted to avoid criminal liability by entering into a compromise and making only a partial payment of ₹10 lakhs while promising to repay the remaining amount. One of the petitioners was also alleged to have executed an agreement to sell land as security for the outstanding amount before subsequently backing out of the commitment. Threat allegations were also levelled when the complainant demanded return of his money.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated and that the matter was purely civil in nature. It was contended that an earlier complaint on identical allegations had already been compromised after payment of ₹10 lakhs and execution of an affidavit acknowledging full settlement, including return of gold. The petitioners further argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioners had acted in a pre-planned and calculated manner to cheat the complainant under the guise of arranging foreign migration. The prosecution maintained that the compromise itself had been procured through false assurances and that custodial interrogation was essential for recovery of the cheated amount and uncovering the complete modus operandi.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, the High Court observed that the allegations went beyond a simple monetary dispute and prima facie disclosed elements of deception, inducement, and dishonest intention from the very beginning. The Court noted that the complainant was persuaded to hand over a substantial amount of money and gold on promises that were never fulfilled.
The Court further held that the subsequent conduct of the accused, including partial repayment, undertakings, and later resiling from commitments, prima facie reflected a pattern of misrepresentation. The plea of earlier compromise could not be accepted at the anticipatory bail stage when the prosecution itself alleged that the compromise had been obtained through false assurances.
Emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted as a matter of course in cases involving large-scale cheating. The Court observed that economic offences involving substantial financial fraud have deeper societal impact and require effective custodial interrogation for tracing the money trail and identifying other possible accused persons.
The High Court also relied upon State v. Anil Sharma to reiterate that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning a suspect protected by pre-arrest bail.
Finding no plausible ground to conclude that the petitioners had been falsely implicated, the Court held that grant of anticipatory bail at the nascent stage of investigation could hamper effective investigation and recovery proceedings.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail and held that considering the seriousness of the allegations, the money trail involved, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the petitioners did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.