Nitish Bajaj vs State Of Punjab

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
1


nd ndnd nd
102 (2 102 (2 102 (2 102 (2 case) case) case) case)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026

Nitish Bajaj
....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: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL 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:
“ 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
2

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 and
the location of the business as alleged in the FIR, contending that the same are
wholly baseless. It has been asserted that the petitioner is, in fact, engaged in
his family business being run under the name and style of ‘Bajaj Gallery’ of
which his father is the proprietor. Learned Senior counsel has also contended
that the sole allegation against the petitioner of showing forged online portal
login on his laptop displaying his Visa Approval status is totally false and
fabricated.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
3

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
13.08.2024 registered against other co-accused through his employee, namely,
Davinder Singh, wherein the petitioner was subsequently nominated vide GD
No.33 dated 12.09.2024; 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. Petitioner, in furtherance of the common intention
shared with the co-accused, falsely 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
4

Visa could be procured without the requirement of IELTS. On 26.02.2026,
the petitioner displayed a fabricated online visa approval portal on his
laptop to the complainant, thereby inducing him to part with a further
amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. The petitioner also participated in raising an
illegal demand of Rs.55,00,000/- by threatening to get the visa application
of the complainant blacklisted in case the amount was not paid. During
investigation, the role attributed to the petitioner has further been
corroborated by the disclosure statement of co-accused Gulshan Ahuja,
wherein it has been disclosed that the petitioner, in association with co-
accused Abhishek Ahuja, was responsible for preparing forged visa and
immigration documents and that the equipment used in commission of the
offence was concealed by the petitioner and co-accused after registration
of the FIR (supra).
(B) (B) (B) (B) Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner: Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner

i) The complainant has made specific and categorical allegations
against the petitioner in the application as well as in the FIR
(supra), alleging that the petitioner falsely represented himself as
an authorized immigration facilitator, displayed a fabricated online
visa approval portal on his laptop, dishonestly induced the
complainant to pay Rs. 13,00,000/ - in cash and thereafter
participated in demanding additional Rs.55,00,000/- by threatening
that the complainant's visa application would be blacklisted.
ii) During the enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Operations), Ludhiana, the allegations
levelled by the complainant were verified and found to disclose a
prima facie cognizable offence. The enquiry report specifically
attributes a role to the petitioner in displaying the fabricated visa
approval, dishonestly obtaining money from the complainant and
acting in concert with the other accused persons. On the basis of
the enquiry, registration of the present FIR against the petitioner
and other co-accused was specifically recommended and thereafter
approved by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.
iii) During investigation, co-accused Gulshan Ahuja, while in police
custody, suffered a disclosure statement under Section 23(2) of
BSA, 2023, wherein he disclosed that all four accused persons
were jointly operating the immigration racket. He specifically
disclosed that the petitioner, along with co-accused Abhishek
Ahuja, used to prepare forged immigration and visa-related
documents, that the fraudulent operation was being conducted
from their premises and that the equipment used for preparing the
forged electronic records was in the possession of the petitioner
and co-accused Abhishek Ahuja.
iv) The disclosure statement of co-accused Gulshan Ahuja further
reveals that immediately after learning about the registration of the
present FIR, the petitioner, along with co-accused Abhishek Ahuja,
concealed the laptop and other electronic equipment used for
preparation of forged visa documents at an undisclosed place and
that the said articles could be recovered only at their instance and
on their identification. The recovery of the concealed electronic
devices and forged digital records is still pending. ”

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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
5

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 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 had induced the complainant by displaying a forged login to
an online visa portal on his laptop, falsely depicting the status as “Visa
Approval”, thereby inducing the complainant to part with a substantial amount
of money. 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-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 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 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.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
7

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 involved in 01 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 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
8

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 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.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 09:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-37151 CRM CRM 37151 37151-2026 37151 2026 2026 2026
9

In State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039]
Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“ 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
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