Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Immigration Fraud Involving Forged Documents and ₹26 Lakh Loss
Case Name: Gouri Sharma vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-64289-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a serious and structured immigration fraud involving inducement of innocent individuals, fabrication of documents and misappropriation of money. The Court observed that the case required custodial interrogation to trace the money trail, recover relevant documents, ascertain the extent of the alleged conspiracy and determine the petitioner’s role. The Court held that the petitioner failed to show circumstances warranting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail and that granting protection at this stage would impede an effective and fair investigation.
Summary: The FIR alleged that the complainant and his family were induced through a social media advertisement to pay ₹26,00,000 on the representation that Canadian work permits would be arranged on a “payment-after-permit” basis. The amount was allegedly transferred through RTGS and other digital modes. It was further alleged that forged appointment confirmations and immigration documents were issued, resulting in rejection of immigration requests and a five-year ban by Canadian authorities. The petitioner argued that no part of the money ever passed through his account, no direct communication with the complainant took place and that he was implicated merely due to association with the co-accused. The State opposed the petition, arguing the FIR disclosed an organized fraud scheme and that the petitioner’s role could not be assessed solely on whether money entered his account. The Court also noted the nature of allegations, including impersonation, forgery, inducement, conspiracy and exploitation of aspirants seeking overseas employment.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring custodial interrogation and that the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in cases involving organized immigration fraud could undermine the deterrent purpose of criminal law and embolden similar illegal networks. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation can be essential in conspiracy-based financial and document-driven offences. The dismissal was made without expressing any final opinion on merits, and all pending applications were disposed of.