P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused In Alleged ₹14 Lakh New Zealand Travel Fraud, Citing Need For Custodial Questioning

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 13(1) of the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s brother and a friend paid ₹14 lakh to the accused to arrange travel to New Zealand. After they did not travel, a panchayat settlement provided for repayment of ₹11 lakh; ₹5.5 lakh was repaid, but the balance allegedly remained unpaid.

The petitioner denied involvement, disputed the allegations, relied on his claimed limited receipt of funds and cooperation with the investigation, and argued that the FIR was delayed.

The Sessions Court had dismissed his anticipatory-bail application.

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 rights against societal interests, considering the nature and magnitude of the alleged offence, the accused’s role, the requirements of a fair investigation, and the wider impact of the alleged conduct.

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 suspect protected by pre-arrest bail.

The Court considered the alleged ₹14 lakh payment, the subsequent settlement, the partial repayment, and the allegation that the remaining amount was not returned; it also noted that approximately ₹2 lakh had been transferred to the petitioner’s account.

It treated the petitioner’s claims of false implication and limited involvement as disputed factual matters for determination on evidence, rather than grounds to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the need to investigate the petitioner’s role and unravel the facts, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary and that pre-arrest protection could impede effective investigation.

The petition was dismissed; pending applications were also disposed of, with the Court clarifying that its observations would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.