P&H HC Denies Akhil Dawar Anticipatory Bail in ₹25 Lakh UK Visa Fraud Case, Citing Unrecovered Passport and Money

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner and co-accused induced the complainant to pay ₹25 lakh by promising a UK skilled-worker visa, displayed allegedly forged visa and sponsorship documents, retained the complainant’s passport and educational certificates, and threatened him when he challenged the documents.

The Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail; before the High Court, the petitioner alleged false implication, delay in registering the FIR, absence of payment to him, and a retaliatory connection with an earlier FIR, and offered to join the investigation.

The State and complainant opposed bail, asserting that custodial interrogation was needed to recover documents and the alleged proceeds and to investigate the fraud.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides the basis for seeking anticipatory bail.

In deciding whether to grant that discretionary relief, the court must balance individual liberty against societal interests and consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s alleged role, and the requirements of a fair and effective investigation.

Relying on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that custodial interrogation may be more effective in eliciting information and uncovering concealed material than questioning a person protected by a pre-arrest bail order.

Disputed factual defences, including alleged false implication, are not ordinarily conclusively determined at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The Court considered the allegations specific to the petitioner and the prosecution’s claim that the complainant’s original documents, the alleged proceeds, and evidence relating to forged documents remained to be recovered or collected.

It also noted that the petitioner had disclosed involvement in another FIR and treated that antecedent as relevant to the bail assessment.

The State’s affidavit denied that the complainant in this case was related to the complainant in the earlier FIR, undermining the asserted familial connection underlying the alleged retaliatory motive.

The Court held that the petitioner’s competing factual claims were matters for assessment on evidence, while the seriousness of the allegations and the investigative needs weighed against pre-arrest protection.

It clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation and disposed of any pending applications.