Rupesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present 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. 185 dated 20.06.2025, registered under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 351(3), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Sections 407, 420, 506, 34 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860], at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.

2.

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused is that they had cheated the complainant for ₹16,72,980/- which was allegedly taken on the pretext of sending her son to England and securing employment. However, neither son of the complainant was sent to England nor was the entire amount returned to her. Thus, according to the allegations, the accused persons failed to fulfill their promise of sending the complainant's son abroad and also failed to return the amount in question.

P a g e | 2

Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against accused persons.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of merit. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and is not named in the FIR. It has been argued that the prime allegations are against co-accused Pratham Saini @ Monty. He has further contended that the petitioner never interacted with the complainant or induced her to part with any money. It has further been contended that the amount credited in the bank account of the petitioner's wife was subsequently transferred onwards and no wrongful gain accrued to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner's wife has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of parity.

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.

Conversely, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, allegations levelled against the petitioner are of a grave and serious

P a g e | 3

nature, involving a well-orchestrated fraud amounting to Rs.16,72,980/- wherein the complainant was deceived under the false pretext of sending her son abroad. It was further contended that the magnitude of the offence reflects not only a blatant abuse of trust but also a calculated exploitation of the vulnerability and aspirations of the complainant. According to learned State counsel, the offence committed by the petitioner caused substantial financial and emotional distress to the complainant and her family. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy and recover the ill-gotten money. Granting bail at this stage may set a wrong precedent in cases involving human trafficking and immigration fraud. Furthermore, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and obstruct the recovery and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition in order to facilitate effective investigation into the alleged offence.

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 material available on record and the stand of the prosecution, the allegations in the present case disclose an organized fraud involving inducement of the complainant and her family to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of sending her son abroad for employment. Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, it is well settled that the role of an accused can emerge during the course of investigation. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that an amount of ₹3,00,000/- was credited in the account of the

P a g e | 4

petitioner's wife and the prosecution seeks to investigate the circumstances under which the said amount was received and thereafter transferred forward. The argument raised by learned counsel regarding parity with the petitioner's wife also does not merit acceptance at this stage, as the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner's wife was passed in the peculiar facts & circumstances applicable in her case. Further, as per stand of the prosecution, it has been specifically alleged that the account through which the disputed amount was routed was being operated by the present petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity as a matter of right.

6.1.

The offence in question does not merely involve financial deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of human trafficking and cross-border immigration fraud, which are not only grave in nature but also have far-reaching consequences on public order. Cases of this nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with false promises of lawful migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and merit strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence. Human trafficking under the garb of immigration consultancy is a growing menace which preys upon the desperation and dreams of unsuspecting citizens. The Courts must remain vigilant and ensure that such rackets are not emboldened by leniency at the pre-trial stage. The fraudulent inducement for illegal migration, followed by subjecting individuals to inhumane and life-threatening conditions abroad, not only reflects criminal intent but also constitutes a serious affront to human dignity and national interest. The Court cannot overlook the broader public interest involved in cases of immigration fraud, especially when they border on transnational human trafficking. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence.

P a g e | 5

6.2.

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.

6.3.

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 and his co-accused had defrauded the complainant of a substantial amount under the false pretext of facilitating legal migration of her 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

P a g e | 6

has come on record and the 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 [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 is necessary for an effective investigation & 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 July 17, 2026 Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rupesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: July 17, 2026 Date of Uploading: July 17, 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. *****