Immigration Fraud or Human Trafficking? P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹14.6 Lakh Visa Scam Case

Case Name: Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-15077-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving serious allegations of immigration fraud with elements of organized cheating and potential human trafficking, particularly where custodial interrogation is necessary and the accused has criminal antecedents.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging offences under the IPC and Immigration Act, wherein he was accused of cheating the complainant of ₹14,62,000 on the pretext of facilitating his daughter’s migration to Australia on a study visa. It was alleged that neither was the visa arranged nor was the money returned.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged offence, asserting that he was working in the UAE at the relevant time. It was further argued that the amount of ₹3 lakh credited to his account was transferred by a relative of a co-accused and not directly by the complainant. The petitioner also expressed willingness to deposit the said amount to demonstrate bona fides and argued that no custodial interrogation was required.

The State opposed the plea, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and that a portion of the defrauded amount had been directly transferred to his account. It was further submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy and recover the defrauded money.

The Court observed that the allegations were grave and specific, involving financial fraud under the guise of immigration services. It further noted that the petitioner was implicated in multiple similar FIRs, indicating habitual involvement in such offences.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that such offences go beyond mere cheating and may involve elements of organized human trafficking and cross-border fraud, which have serious implications on public trust and national interest. The Court stressed the need for strict judicial scrutiny in such cases to deter exploitation of vulnerable individuals seeking opportunities abroad.

The Court also reiterated that custodial interrogation is often necessary in such cases to effectively investigate the broader conspiracy and recover evidence, relying on established principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Balancing individual liberty with societal interest, the Court held that no ground was made out for grant of anticipatory bail in light of the seriousness of allegations, the petitioner’s role, and the need for effective investigation.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that the case did not warrant grant of pre-arrest protection.