Involvement in Other Cases No Grounds for Denial of Bail, Personal Liberty Must Be Upheld: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Anu Thakur vs. State of Haryana, granted anticipatory bail to Anu Thakur in connection with a visa fraud case under FIR No. 696 of 2024, which involved allegations of conspiracy, forgery, and cheating. Despite the State’s argument regarding the petitioner’s involvement in other similar cases, the Court ruled in favor of bail, citing Article 21 and the need to evaluate evidence specific to the case at hand.

The petitioner, Anu Thakur, along with several others, was accused of defrauding complainants by promising to secure Australian visas in exchange for substantial amounts of money. The visas, provided through the Milestone Education and Immigration Service, were later found to be fake. The complaint, filed by Narendra Singh on behalf of his son and nephew, detailed payments of ₹42 lakhs to the accused. The fraudulent nature of the visas was revealed when the complainants were stopped at the airport.

Thakur sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in the scam under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged documents), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

Whether the petitioner, accused of involvement in a visa fraud case, is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents in other cases should prevent the granting of bail.

Criminal Antecedents and Article 21: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner was involved in another FIR under similar charges. However, the Court emphasized that past criminal records should not automatically lead to denial of bail. Citing Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab, the Court noted that the accused’s involvement in other cases cannot dictate the outcome of the present bail application. The evidence must be considered within the specific context of the case.

Recovery and Custodial Interrogation: The Court observed that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner, and her custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage. The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation by submitting relevant documents.

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the condition that she joins the investigation within one week and furnishes personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The Court also laid down several conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, including that the petitioner must not leave the country without prior permission from the Court and must make herself available for interrogation as required.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Anu Thakur, reaffirming the principle that bail cannot be denied solely due to the existence of other criminal cases. The ruling emphasized the importance of evaluating each case on its individual merits, in accordance with the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2024

Anu Thakur vs. State of Haryana