-
by sayum
25 August 2026 12:32 PM
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Anu Thakur, the petitioner, under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy concerning the issuance of fake visas. The court emphasized that pending cases alone cannot be the basis for denying bail if there is no custodial necessity.
The case originates from an FIR No. 696 dated September 2, 2024, registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, Haryana. The FIR accuses the petitioner, along with other co-accused, of being part of a conspiracy to defraud victims by promising genuine visas for Australia, for a sum of ₹42 lakh. The victims, Khushpreet Singh and Babandeep Singh, were issued fake visas, which were discovered when they attempted to travel.
The complainants alleged that they paid ₹42 lakh to various individuals, including the petitioner, for visa arrangements. However, the visas turned out to be fake upon inspection at the Delhi airport, leading to the registration of the case under serious charges, including forgery and cheating.
Anticipatory Bail Under Section 482 BNSS, 2023: The primary legal question was whether the petitioner, Anu Thakur, could be granted anticipatory bail, given the serious nature of the allegations.
Criminal Antecedents and Pending Cases: The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in another FIR under Section 420 IPC, claiming that her criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail.
Custodial Interrogation: Another issue was whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary, considering the facts of the case and her cooperation with the investigation.
The court examined several key factors, including the absence of any recovery from the petitioner and her cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had complied with all investigative requests and submitted relevant documents. Additionally, no material evidence suggested that custodial interrogation was required.
In response, the State argued that the petitioner had a prior case pending against her, indicating a pattern of fraudulent behavior. However, the court, relying on its previous ruling in Baljinder Singh @ Rock vs. State of Punjab, emphasized that criminal antecedents should not be the sole reason for denying bail. The court noted:
"No doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into, but at the same time, it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in other pending cases."
The court stressed that each case must be evaluated on its own merits and that bail cannot be automatically denied based solely on the pendency of other cases.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions, including her cooperation with the ongoing investigation. The court ordered that the petitioner must:
Report to the Investigating Officer within one week.
Furnish personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer.
Comply with the conditions outlined under Section 482(2) BNSS, including not leaving India without prior permission and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The court added that the anticipatory bail would be automatically canceled if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions within the stipulated time.
In this case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal antecedents and pending cases should not alone be grounds for denying bail. The court focused on the lack of custodial necessity and the petitioner's compliance with investigative processes, ultimately granting anticipatory bail.
Date of Decision: October 9, 2024
Anu Thakur vs. State of Haryana
