P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Using Fake UK Visa Portal To Induce ₹13 Lakh Payment

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 complainant alleged that the petitioner and co-accused, posing as immigration facilitators, induced him to pay money for a UK work visa; specifically, the petitioner allegedly displayed a fabricated visa-approval portal and induced a further payment of ₹13 lakh.

The petitioner denied the allegations, asserted false implication and delay in lodging the FIR, and argued that no recovery was required from him and that he was willing to join the investigation.

The State and complainant opposed bail, citing the need to recover the complainant’s documents, the alleged defrauded amount, and electronic devices said to contain forged records.

The Sessions Court had rejected anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, governs the application for anticipatory bail.

In deciding whether to grant that discretionary relief, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the role attributed to the accused, the requirements of a fair investigation, and the potential societal impact.

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

The Court found that the prosecution attributed a specific role to the petitioner in inducing the complainant to pay money, and that the complainant’s passport and educational certificates, the allegedly defrauded money, and electronic evidence relating to the purported forged documents remained to be recovered or collected.

It considered custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation, applying the reasoning in Anil Sharma.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s other FIR antecedent as a relevant consideration, while treating the asserted false implication and related factual disputes as matters for determination on evidence rather than at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The State’s affidavit further denied that the complainant in this case was related to the complainant in the earlier FIR, contrary to the petitioner’s assertion.

It dismissed the petition and disposed of any pending applications; it clarified that its observations would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.