Air India’s Alleged ₹7.64-Crore Ticket Fraud: P&H HC Rejects Bid To Cancel Accused Director’s Pre-Arrest Bail After She Secures Regular Bail

In brief

The question

Whether the order granting respondent No. 2 anticipatory bail warranted setting aside on the ground that it was perverse, overlooked material circumstances, or caused a miscarriage of justice

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to set aside the anticipatory-bail order, finding no sufficient ground to interfere and holding that the later grant of regular bail also warranted dismissal.

It also directed

It clarified that its observations were not an opinion on the merits of the criminal case.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

01Facts

Air India challenged an order dated 17 April 2026 granting respondent No. 2 anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging fraudulent bookings and chargebacks involving 236 air tickets, with a stated total loss of ₹7,64,20,262

p. 1 · ¶ 1 · p. 4 · ¶ 5

Respondent No. 2 was the managing director and 70% shareholder of Ira Entrepreneurs Private Ltd.; the investigating agency attributed the principal role in facilitating the fraudulent travel-agent identities to her husband, a co-accused

p. 5 · ¶ 5

The Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail, noting that the case against respondent No. 2 was largely based on suspicion, documentary evidence, and that she had joined the investigation

p. 5 · ¶ 5

By the time the High Court considered the petition, the challan had been filed and respondent No. 2 had been granted regular bail on 14 August 2026

p. 6 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the order granting respondent No. 2 anticipatory bail warranted setting aside on the ground that it was perverse, overlooked material circumstances, or caused a miscarriage of justice

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3 · p. 6 · ¶ 6

ii.Whether the challenge to the anticipatory-bail order had become infructuous after respondent No. 2 was granted regular bail

p. 6 · ¶ 6

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

p. 1 · ¶ 1

An order granting anticipatory bail may be set aside where the granting court failed to consider material facts or crucial circumstances, or where its exercise of discretion is perverse or otherwise results in a miscarriage of justice

p. 6 · ¶ 6

In the circumstances of this case, the challenge to the anticipatory-bail order became infructuous once regular bail had been granted

p. 6 · ¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had considered respondent No. 2’s attributed role and the circumstances relevant to the bail decision.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

It held that the order was reasoned, was not based on irrelevant considerations, and did not show perversity, jurisdictional overreach, or a failure to consider material on record.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

The Court also noted that there was no indication that respondent No. 2 had misused the concession of bail.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

In addition, because the challan had been filed and respondent No. 2 had subsequently obtained regular bail, the Court accepted that the challenge to the earlier anticipatory-bail order had become infructuous.

p. 6 · ¶ 6