₹27 Crore Gold Shortfall Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Baash Diamonds Director & Co-Accused
Case Name: Kunal Golchha v. State of Punjab; Vinod Golchha v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 20 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-44216-2025 & CRM-M-44201-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where prima facie material indicates inducement, receipt of over ₹27 crores, and substantial shortfall in delivery of promised gold, the plea that the dispute is purely civil cannot be accepted at the anticipatory bail stage. The Court held that admitted deficiency in supply coupled with allegations of misrepresentation regarding stock availability attracts the ingredients of cheating under Section 318 BNS. Anticipatory bail was declined to both accused, whose roles were found to be intertwined.
Summary: The petitions under Section 482 of the BNSS sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 561 dated 20.12.2024 registered under Sections 318 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) .
The FIR was registered pursuant to an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned JMIC, Dera Bassi under Section 175(3) BNSS on a complaint filed by Anish Sharma. The complainant alleged that the accused induced him to purchase 36.460 kilograms of gold at ₹74,30,000 per kilogram and transferred more than ₹27 crores to their account. Despite receiving full payment, the accused allegedly failed to deliver the entire quantity, leaving gold worth more than ₹6 crores outstanding .
During enquiry, it surfaced that the accused did not have sufficient stock despite receipt of the amount. It was noted that the accused admitted receiving the full payment but had not delivered the entire agreed quantity. On this basis, the Magistrate directed registration of the FIR .
The petitioners contended that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction. Kunal Golchha, Director of M/s Baash Diamonds Private Limited, admitted receipt of more than ₹27 crores and delivery of 27 kilograms of gold in tranches. He claimed that the remaining quantity was withheld due to disputes over acknowledgment of earlier consignments and alleged unlawful demands by the complainant .
On an earlier date, the Court had directed production of CCTV footage allegedly showing delivery of the remaining gold. However, as reflected in the status report, the footage did not depict any transfer of possession of the alleged balance quantity. Instead, it merely showed jewellery being displayed and returned, with no visual proof of delivery. The Court also noted that the petitioner had earlier admitted during enquiry that he had supplied only 27 kilograms and remained liable for the balance .
The Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that unlike a mere breach of contract, the present case involved specific allegations of inducement, absence of stock despite representation, admitted receipt of full consideration, and substantial deficiency in supply — collectively constituting prima facie material suggestive of deception .
As regards Vinod Golchha, though claimed to be merely the father of the co-accused, the complaint specifically alleged that both accused jointly issued invoices and participated in the representations leading to transfer of funds. Their roles were found to be intertwined and inseparable at this stage.
Considering the magnitude of the transaction, admitted shortfall, lack of supportive CCTV evidence, and prima facie ingredients of cheating, the Court held that it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Decision: Both anticipatory bail petitions filed by Kunal Golchha and Vinod Golchha were dismissed .