Rajiv Kumar Chhabra v. State of Haryana & Another

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.44 dated 09.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula.

The first plea for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars qua antecedents of the petitioner, vide order dated 26.08.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M-47788-2026.

2.

The FIR in question pertains to fraud involving a huge amount of money, allegedly committed against the complainant on the false pretext of

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been argued that there is considerable unexplained delay in the registration of FIR as the alleged transactions are of April 2024, whereas the FIR in question came to be registered on 09.04.2026, which casts doubt on the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the money has not come in the account of the petitioner (herein) but in the account of the co-accused. It has been further argued that the genesis of the FIR in question is a family related dispute and same is being given the criminal colour, so as to arm-twist the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner is willing to return Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant-side and in order to show his bonafide the petitioner is willing to handover a demand draft of Rs.2.5 lakhs today itself.

3.1.

Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has asserted that the petitioner has dishonestly cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on the pretext of sending his son aboard, but neither needful was done nor was

the money in question returned to the complainant. According to learned State counsel, the offence committed by the petitioner caused substantial financial and emotional distress to the victim. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy, identify co-accused and recover the ill-gotten money. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

4.1.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the complainant was induced to part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of sending his son abroad. However, the son of the complainant was neither sent abroad nor was the amount in question refunded. It is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6.

As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. From a perusal of the prosecution case, it prima facie emerges that the petitioner induced the complainant on the pretext of sending his son abroad and, on such representation, made him part with a substantial amount of money. As per prosecution case, neither the son of the complainant was sent abroad nor was the money in question returned to the complainant.

The allegations, prima facie, disclose a deliberate act of cheating and dishonest inducement involving a substantial amount of money.

6.1.

Such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens seeking opportunities abroad. These fraudulent activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.

6.2.

Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant of a substantial amount under the false pretext of facilitating legal migration of his son to abroad, which caused severe financial and emotional distress.

7.

It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come

on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

8.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation, recover ill-gotten money & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

9.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE September 10, 2026 Mahavir/Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Rajiv Kumar Chhabra ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of Decision: September 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: September 11, 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Supriya Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****