Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1 Crore Immigration Fraud, Says Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Trace Money Trail

Case Name: Simran Sahij @ Gaurav Saini v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-35067-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted as a matter of course, particularly where the allegations concern an organised immigration fraud involving a substantial amount of money and several victims. The Court observed that the seriousness of the accusations, the petitioner’s alleged involvement in inducing complainants, the need to trace the money trail and the necessity of recovering relevant documents justified custodial interrogation.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s plea that he was neither a licensed immigration agent nor a direct beneficiary of the alleged amount could be examined during investigation or trial. The absence of any immediate recovery from him did not dilute the allegations regarding his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

Summary: The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case arose from complaints made by several persons against an immigration company operating under the name “Candream Overseas” at Gurdaspur. It was alleged that the company collected more than ₹1 crore from numerous individuals after promising to send them abroad. The complainants alleged that their passports and other important documents were retained, but neither visas were arranged nor was the money returned.

During the investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the allegation that he was actively associated with the activities of the immigration company and had participated in inducing prospective customers and facilitating transactions connected with the alleged fraud.

The petitioner argued that he had not been named in the original complaint submitted by the 22 complainants and that no specific overt act had been attributed to him. He further claimed that he had neither received any part of the disputed amount nor made any representation regarding sending persons abroad. It was also submitted that the principal accused had already been arrested and that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the application and contended that the material collected during the investigation indicated the petitioner’s active involvement in the affairs of Candream Overseas. It was argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the complete conspiracy, trace the flow of money, recover the cheated amount and identify other persons involved.

The High Court found that the material placed before it disclosed a reasonable basis for the accusations. It observed that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and that granting pre-arrest bail could hamper an effective and unhindered investigation.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Anil Sharma, in which it was recognised that custodial interrogation may be more effective in eliciting information and discovering concealed material than questioning an accused who is protected by an anticipatory bail order.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition as being devoid of merit. It held that, considering the nature and magnitude of the alleged immigration fraud, the stage of the investigation and the need for custodial interrogation to trace and recover the disputed amount, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.