Anticipatory bail denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel a substantial financial fraud.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 118 dated 17 April 2026, registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa, for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused, who were related to the complainant, induced her to send her daughter Jasmeen/Jasmine Kaur to Germany for education and employment.

They allegedly obtained approximately ₹26,50,000, eight tolas of gold jewellery, cash, the daughter’s passport and original educational documents, but failed to arrange the promised visa; a subsequently supplied visa was allegedly found to be fake.

The prosecution relied on a series of financial transactions involving the petitioner, co-accused Paramjit Kaur, the complainant and Jasmeen Kaur, including transfers into the petitioner’s account, payments towards college fees and overseas remittances.

After the visa was allegedly refused, the accused purportedly obtained an affidavit for refund of money lying in a blocked account, and the refunded amount was allegedly credited to an account connected with the accused.

The petitioner contended that he had financially assisted the complainant and relied on reciprocal bank transfers to deny involvement.

The State and complainant opposed bail, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the financial transactions and ascertain the petitioner’s role.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in respect of the FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.

Whether the alleged financial transactions, the purportedly fake visa, and the petitioner’s connection with the co-accused warranted custodial interrogation and justified denial of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and may be declined where the allegations disclose a serious offence, the investigation requires custodial interrogation, or the accused’s custodial examination is necessary to trace the money trail, determine the roles of the participants and recover relevant evidence.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the allegations could not be examined as an isolated monetary dispute because the prosecution relied on a continuous chain of transactions involving the petitioner, the co-accused and the complainant’s family.

The petitioner’s account had allegedly received substantial amounts, while other funds were routed through the accounts of the co-accused and the complainant’s daughter towards the proposed foreign-study process.

The Court found that the reciprocal transfers relied upon by the petitioner did not conclusively explain the purpose, movement or ultimate utilisation of all amounts, particularly when considered alongside the alleged cash payments, gold jewellery, blocked-account refund and purportedly fake visa.

Since the petitioner’s daughter, also an accused, was residing abroad, and the petitioner was allegedly directly involved in the relevant financial dealings, custodial interrogation was considered necessary to trace the complete financial trail, determine each participant’s role and investigate the procurement and furnishing of the alleged fake visa.

The Court further observed that alleged fraud committed by exploiting familial trust and the complainant’s aspirations for her daughter’s education abroad warranted a thorough investigation.

It held that the seriousness of the allegations, the substantial and interlinked financial transactions, the need for custodial interrogation and the alleged use of familial trust justified refusing the discretionary relief under Section 482 BNSS.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous.