P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Wife Accused In Visa Fraud, Citing ₹62.78 Lakh In Husband’s Transfers And 52 Complaints

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 119 dated 28 July 2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 24 of the Immigration Act.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner, her husband Manpreet Singh Khurana and others had defrauded the complainant of ₹4,50,000 by promising to arrange an R1 visa to the United States.

The petitioner argued that she had no specific role, had not met the complainant and had received no money from him; she was willing to join the investigation.

The State relied on a report stating that the petitioner was named or implicated in five FIRs involving 52 complaints and that ₹62,78,800 had been transferred from her husband’s account to her bank account. It also submitted that she was absconding in a connected case and that her earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed.

Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC as identified in the judgment, governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied the principle in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, that the court must first consider the prima facie case, followed by the nature of the offence and severity of punishment; the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is only one relevant consideration and, by itself, does not justify anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) BNS and Section 24 of the Immigration Act.

The Court considered the police report identifying five FIRs and 52 complaints, the reported transfer of ₹62,78,800 from the co-accused husband’s account to the petitioner’s account, and the petitioner’s alleged absconding in a connected case.

It concluded that the material established a prima facie case against her and that her antecedents and conduct weighed against pre-arrest bail.

Applying Sumitha Pradeep, the Court did not treat her willingness to join the investigation or the asserted lack of need for custodial interrogation as sufficient grounds for relief.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence; pending applications were disposed of accordingly.