Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Impersonation and Cheating Case; Holds Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover Modus Operandi

Case Name: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 1 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-74138-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust by impersonating a government officer. The Court held that the allegations were grave in nature, involved impersonation through fake identity cards, and required custodial interrogation to effectively investigate the modus operandi and recover incriminating material. It was further held that the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly and not in serious cases where investigation may be hampered.

Summary: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, alleging that he had cheated the complainant by falsely representing himself as a senior officer of the Department of Financial Services. The complainant, an advocate by profession, alleged that the petitioner gained his trust by wearing identity cards and clothing bearing the insignia of the said department, following which he induced the complainant to advance a loan of ₹2.80 lakh. Out of the said amount, only ₹57,000 was returned, and the petitioner allegedly admitted to cheating multiple persons in a similar manner.

The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that no impersonation was involved. He offered to join the investigation and sought protection from arrest. The State opposed the petition, highlighting that during cross-examination in other judicial proceedings, the petitioner had admitted to being a government employee posted in the Finance Department and had even produced photocopies of identity cards, thereby corroborating the allegations of impersonation.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had made contradictory claims regarding his employment status and that fake identity cards used for impersonation were yet to be recovered. The Court relied on settled principles that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective in serious and complex cases, particularly where recovery of material evidence and uncovering of a wider modus operandi is involved. The Court further observed that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would impede investigation and could lead to miscarriage of justice.

Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that, considering the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the petitioner was not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.