Bail Cancelled in ₹50 Lakh Immigration Fraud Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Accused Misused Liberty by Giving False Assurances of Repayment

Case Name: Sarbjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another

Date of Judgment: 14 May 2026

Citation: CRM-M-4519-2026 and connected matter

Bench: Justice Subhas Mehla

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelled the regular bail granted to two accused in an alleged ₹50 lakh immigration fraud and illegal confinement case, holding that the accused had misused the concession of bail by allegedly misleading the complainant through false assurances of repayment and by attempting to influence the course of investigation. The Court observed that cancellation of bail is justified where conduct of the accused indicates interference with justice or misuse of liberty granted by the Court.

Summary: The petitions were filed by complainant Sarbjeet Kaur seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to two accused persons in an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 370 IPC along with Section 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

According to the complainant, the accused had duped her family of nearly ₹50 lakh on the pretext of sending her husband to the United States. Instead, her husband was allegedly taken to different countries, illegally confined, subjected to threats, and repeatedly used as a means to extort further money from the family. The complaint further alleged that the victim was kidnapped abroad more than once by immigration agents and that his whereabouts still remained unknown.

The complainant argued before the High Court that custodial interrogation of the accused was still necessary for tracing her husband and that the accused continued to remain in touch with persons allegedly confining him abroad. It was further alleged that after securing bail, the accused attempted to mislead the complainant by offering false assurances regarding repayment of the cheated amount.

Particular emphasis was placed on allegations that one of the accused, through his sister, showed photocopies of demand drafts worth approximately ₹40 lakh and assured the complainant that the originals would be handed over immediately after bail was granted. However, after release on bail, the accused allegedly failed to honour the assurance or return any amount.

The accused opposed cancellation of bail by arguing that bail had already been granted on merits and that no specific role or direct monetary transfer had been established against them. Reliance was also placed upon a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that bail once granted should not ordinarily be cancelled absent overwhelming circumstances.

However, the High Court found that the seriousness of allegations, the continuing disappearance of the complainant’s husband, and the conduct of the accused after grant of bail collectively justified cancellation of bail. Justice Subhas Mehla observed that bail appeared to have been granted partly on the basis of assurances regarding repayment and possibility of compromise, but the subsequent conduct of the accused reflected misuse of liberty.

The Court further held that allegations regarding threats and attempts to influence the investigation could not be lightly brushed aside, particularly when the victim remained untraceable. The Bench reiterated that though cancellation of bail is not to be ordered mechanically, courts are justified in revoking bail where the accused misuse the concession, interfere with administration of justice, or attempt to hamper investigation.

Decision: Allowing both petitions, the High Court set aside the orders granting regular bail to the accused persons and directed them to surrender before the trial Court within seven days, failing which coercive steps were ordered to be taken for securing their custody.