Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in ₹23 lakh fraud case involving foreign placement scam
Case Name: Karan Taaz v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 03, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56239-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Karan Taaz under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation, especially considering the gravity of the alleged financial fraud involving multiple victims and dishonoured cheques amounting to ₹17 lakhs. Relying on State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should be sparingly granted, particularly in economic offences where pre-arrest protection may impede investigation.
Summary: The FIR, registered at Police Station Karnal Sadar, alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, induced the complainant to pay ₹23 lakhs on the pretext of sending his son abroad. The petitioner allegedly issued three cheques totaling ₹17 lakhs to settle the liability, all of which were dishonoured. The defence argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, stemming from monetary transactions already covered under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that no documentary evidence linked the petitioner directly to the complainant. The State opposed bail, stressing that the petitioner’s role was central and recovery of ₹6 lakhs remained outstanding.
Justice Mandeep Pannu emphasized that economic offences require stringent scrutiny, as they have deep-rooted societal impact. The Court cited P. Chidambaram and Anil Sharma to highlight that effective custodial interrogation is often necessary to uncover concealed materials and financial trails, and that granting anticipatory bail at the investigation stage can frustrate inquiry.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was essential for fair investigation. It clarified that observations made were not to influence the trial or merits of the case. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.