Abhishek Ahuja vs State Of Punjab

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
1


stststst
102 ( 102 (1 102 ( 102 ( case) case) case) case)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026

Abhishek Ahuja
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 11 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November November 12 November 12 12, 2026 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present Present: Present Present Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate and
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’)
for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR
No.147 dated 25.05.2026, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) & 61(2) of the BNS, 2023,
at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu drawn from the
order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
2

“ 5. As per record, the FIR was registered on basis of a complaint dated
15.05.2026 moved by Deepak Garg that all the accused are running a
professional syndicate under guise of an immigration consultancy and
defrauded him of Rs.25,00,000/-. The accused guaranteed a U.K. skilled
work visa for him within 90 days without any requirement of IELTS. The
first payment of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid on 29.01.2026 at the residence of
accused, to all four accused named in the FIR. Accused Abhishek Ahuja
took physical possession of original passport and educational certificates
of complainant. On 26.02.2026 accused Nitish Bajaj showed visa
approved to complainant on a forged online portal on his laptop and he
was induced to pay further amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. Thereafter, accused
demanded Rs.55,00,000/- and to gain his faith, on 03.04.2026 accused
Gulshan Ahuja and Akhil Dawar showed him certificate of sponsorship in
their laptop, which was also forged. When he confronted the accused that
the digital QR code shown on the said document has redirected to a dead
link, he was criminally intimidated and threatened. Neither his money was
returned nor visa was procured. ”

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare
perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are
concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned Senior counsel has
further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in
question. It has been contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate
delay of more than 01 month in the registration of the FIR in question. Learned
Senior Counsel has pointed out that, as per the complainant’s own version, an
amount of Rs.13 lakh was allegedly paid on 06.04.2026, whereas the FIR was
registered only on 15.05.2026. Such unexplained delay, it is argued, casts
serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. It has further been
submitted that no amount was either transferred to the petitioner’s bank account
or paid to him in cash. Learned Senior Counsel has also disputed the allegations
regarding the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the immigration business,
contending that the same are wholly baseless. It has been asserted that the
petitioner is a well-reputed businessman who is running multiple businesses in
the District Ludhiana.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that, prior to
registration of the FIR in question, one Vineet Garg had got FIR No.100 dated
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
3

13.08.2024 registered against the petitioner and other co-accused through his
employee, namely, Davinder Singh; and the allegations forming the subject
matter of the said FIR essentially bear civil overtones. It has been argued that
the present FIR is nothing but an attempt to wreak vengeance upon and further
harass the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the complainant in the
present FIR, namely, Deepak Garg, is the cousin of the aforesaid Vineet Garg.
Learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the present FIR and the
aforesaid FIR No.100 have been registered at the same police station, i.e. Police
Station Sarabha Nagar. On the strength of the aforesaid circumstances, it has
been vehemently contended that the present FIR has been lodged with the
ulterior motive of further harassing the petitioner and is an outcome of the
previous animosity. Learned Senior counsel has also urged that the petitioner is
on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR No.100.
3.2. Learned Senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be
recovered from the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel has further iterated
that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of
the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed reply by way
of an affidavit dated 28.07.2026, which is already on record. Role of the
petitioner, as mentioned in the said reply, reads thus:
“ 14. xx xx xx
(A) (A) (A) (A) Role of the petitioner ole of the petitioner ole of the petitioner: ole of the petitioner
Petitioner is one of the principal conspirators in the organized
immigration fraud and played a pivotal role in executing the conspiracy in
active concert with the co-accused. Petitioner projected himself as an
authorized overseas employment facilitator having direct access to the UK
Home Office and induced the complainant to believe that a UK Skilled
Worker Visa could be procured without IELTS. During the course of the
transaction, the petitioner received Rs.12,00,000/- in cash from the
complainant on 29.01.2026 and took possession of the complainant's
original passport and educational certificates under the false pretext of
processing legal apostille formalities. The subsequent investigation and
the disclosure statement of co-accused Gulshan Ahuja further reveal that
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
4

the petitioner was responsible for preparing forged visa and immigration-
related documents on a laptop and was in possession of the electronic
equipment used in the commission of the offence, which was concealed
after registration of the FIR. Thus, the petitioner is not merely a
beneficiary of the alleged transaction but an active participant in the
preparation of forged electronic records forming the very foundation of the
organized fraud.
(B) (B) (B) (B) Incriminating evidence collected against the petit Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner Incriminating evidence collected against the petit Incriminating evidence collected against the petit ioner ioner: ioner

i) The complainant has specifically named the petitioner in the FIR
(supra) and categorically stated that the petitioner dishonestly
induced him to part with Rs.12,00,000/- in cash, took possession of
his original passport and educational certificates on the pretext of
visa processing and actively participated in cheating him by falsely
representing himself as an authorized overseas employment
facilitator.
ii) The enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Police (Operations), Ludhiana independently verified the
allegations levelled by the complainant. The enquiry report
specifically records that on 29.01.2026, the petitioner received
Rs.12,00,000/- in cash from the complainant and obtained his
original passport and educational certificates. The enquiry further
concluded that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, acted in
furtherance of their common intention to cheat the complainant by
using fabricated electronic records and, accordingly, recommended
registration of the present FIR, which recommendation was
approved by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.
iii) During police remand, co-accused Gulshan Ahuja suffered a
disclosure statement under Section 23(2) of BSA, 2023,
specifically disclosing that the petitioner, along with co-accused
Nitish Bajaj, used to prepare forged immigration and visa-related
documents. He further disclosed that the forged visa documents
were prepared by the petitioner on a laptop from their residential
premises, thereby directly attributing to the petitioner the role of
preparing forged electronic records used for cheating prospective
victims.
iv) The disclosure statement further reveals that all the electronic
equipment, including the laptop and other devices used for
preparation of forged immigration documents, remained in the
possession of the petitioner and co-accused Nitish Bajaj. It has
further been disclosed that immediately after registration of the
FIR (supra), the petitioner concealed the said equipment at an
undisclosed place and that the same could be recovered only at his
instance and identification. The recoveries are yet to be effected.
”

Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned
State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by arguing that
serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. According to
learned State counsel, the offence committed by the petitioner caused
substantial financial and emotional distress to the victim. It has been
submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
5

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fair and effective
investigation. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial
likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if the
petitioner is enlarged on bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is
prayed for.
4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a reply dated
21.07.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with
the said reply, learned counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition,
contending that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.
It has been asserted that the petitioner was an active member of an
organised, multi-stage immigration fraud syndicate. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, had
induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the
pretext of securing a UK Skilled Worker Visa without IELTS and also
demanded an additional Rs.55,00,000/- through criminal intimidation. It has
been further contended that, having regard to the gravity and nature of the
allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for
effecting the recovery of certain documents, including those belonging to the
complainant, as well as the defrauded amount. The act of the petitioner and
his co-accused, it has been contended, caused severe financial and emotional
distress to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it has
been argued that the petitioner may abscond from the process justice, in case
the petitioner is afforded the concession of anticipatory bail; hence the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly,
dismissal of the present petition has been vehemently sought for.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
6

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature. Perusal of the prosecution case, material
available on record, the reply filed by the State, as also the order whereby
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined by the concerned Sessions
Court, prima facie reveals that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, had
actively participated and played specific roles in inducing the complainant to
part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of sending him
abroad. As per prosecution case, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are specific and attributed to them by name, warranting a thorough
investigation. It is further the case of the prosecution that the original
documents of the complainant, including his passport and educational
certificates, are yet to be recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused.
The amount allegedly paid by the complainant is also yet to be recovered.
Besides, evidence pertaining to the forged documents allegedly displayed on
the laptops is required to be collected. Keeping in the view factual milieu of
the case in hand; especially the seriousness & gravity of the allegations; this
Court is of the, prima facie , opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the
concession of extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
6.1. Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a
disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals
posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens
seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause
severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
7

lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such
organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law,
leaving no room for leniency.
6.2. Vide order dated 15.09.2026 passed by this Court, the State was
directed to place on record a specific affidavit of the Investigating Officer
with regard to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the
complainant in the present FIR, namely, Deepak Garg, is connected/related
to the complainant, namely, Vineet Garg, in FIR No.100 dated 13.08.2024,
registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate,
Ludhiana. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the State has filed a
compliance report by way of an affidavit dated 29.10.2026, which is already
on record. The relevant extract of the said compliance report reads as under:
“ 13. That in compliance with the order dated 15.09.2026 passed by this
Hon’ble Court, it is respectfully submitted that, as per the record of
FIR No.147 dated 25.05.2026 and FIR No.100 dated 13.08.2024,
Deepak Garg son of Raj Kumar and Vineet Garg son of Vinod
Kumar Garg are not related to each other. Accordingly, the
averment in paragraph 4(h) of the petition that Deepak Garg is a
cousin of Vineet Garg is incorrect and is specifically denied. ”

6.3. Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has
himself admitted therein that he is/was involved in 02 more FIR(s). The
aforesaid criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual
offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s)
cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant
consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable
apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
8

activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of
justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution
witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
6.4. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence
during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be
conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6.5. The iteration at the end of the petitioner that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated on account of a civil/ monetary dispute which is
subject matter of a previous case/ litigation between the FIR-complainant in
the said earlier case/ FIR and the petitioner ( herein ) cannot be countenanced
at this juncture.
6.6. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,
from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant
case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner, along with
his co-accused, had actively participated and played specific roles in
inducing the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the
pretext of sending him abroad, which caused severe financial and emotional
distress.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
9

accused; the need for free and fair investigation as also the deeper and wider
impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every
person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear
of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that
prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which
has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a
reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment
in effective investigation. In State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997
SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039]
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case
like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest
bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such
a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-
degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders. ”

8. In view of the seriousness & gravity of the allegations, this
Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary
relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the
truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-35712 CRM CRM 35712 35712-2026 35712 2026 2026 2026
10 10 10 10

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.









(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 11 November 11, , , , 2026 November 11 November 11 2026 2026 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment