CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 110 Sonia Shai State of Punjab and another Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.74 dated Sections (Regulation) Act, 2014, 2. the complainant namely Pr the petitioner, who was running an immigration business in the name and style of ‘Sahi Immigration’, represented that she could arrange a United Kingdom work permit visa for the son of the complainant namely L Singh and daughter assurance, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of petitioner. It has been further alleged that -28594-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sonia Shai V/s State of Punjab and another Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 16.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Dixit Raj Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference). Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed 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 dated 01.04.2025, registered for Sections 318(4) of BNS and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the FIR, is that the complainant namely Prem Singh (respondent No.2 herein) alleged that the petitioner, who was running an immigration business in the name and style of ‘Sahi Immigration’, represented that she could arrange a United Kingdom work permit visa for the son of the complainant namely L Singh and daughter-in-law namely Harjot Kaur. On the basis of such assurance, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of petitioner. It has been further alleged that 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28594-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Dixit Raj Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference). Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 318(4) of BNS and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals Civil Lines, Patiala. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the FIR, is that em Singh (respondent No.2 herein) alleged that the petitioner, who was running an immigration business in the name and style of ‘Sahi Immigration’, represented that she could arrange a United Kingdom work permit visa for the son of the complainant namely Lovepreet law namely Harjot Kaur. On the basis of such assurance, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of ₹28,40,000/- to the petitioner. It has been further alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR the offences punishable under 318(4) of BNS and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the FIR, is that em Singh (respondent No.2 herein) alleged that the petitioner, who was running an immigration business in the name and style of ‘Sahi Immigration’, represented that she could arrange a United ovepreet law namely Harjot Kaur. On the basis of such to the despite receiving the aforesaid AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- amount, the petitioner had f complainant demanded the return of his money, certain cheques were issued by the petitioner. On presentation, one cheque was honoured whereas the remaining cheques were dishonoured. As per the complainant No.2, the petitioner neither returned the entire amount nor fulfilled the assurances given to the complainant. During the course of enquiry conducted by the police authorities, it was allegedly found that the petitioner did not possess any valid licenc overseas placement or visa services and had induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the false promise of obtaining visas. On the basis of the enquiry report and legal opinion, the present FIR registered. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a business transaction(s) further iterated that of the petitioner visa applications. It fully aware of the risks involved in refusal of visa cannot learned counsel, already in the possession of the investigating agency. Learned counsel emphasized on the petitioner inception is absent. -28594-2026 amount, the petitioner had failed to secure the promised visa. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, certain cheques were issued by the petitioner. On presentation, one cheque was honoured whereas the remaining cheques were dishonoured. As per the complainant No.2, the petitioner neither returned the entire amount nor fulfilled the assurances given to the complainant. During the course of enquiry conducted by the police authorities, it was allegedly found that the petitioner did not possess any valid licence for carrying on the business of providing overseas placement or visa services and had induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the false promise of obtaining visas. On the basis of the enquiry report and legal opinion, the present FIR registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a business transaction(s) which has been given a criminal colour. further iterated that there has never been any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner has made every visa applications. It has been further contended that the complainant was fully aware of the risks involved in the refusal of visa cannot, by itself, constitute a criminal offence. learned counsel, the entire case is based on documentary evidence whic already in the possession of the investigating agency. Learned counsel emphasized that the instant FIR has been lodged on the petitioner as the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception is absent. It has been further contented that n 2 ailed to secure the promised visa. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, certain cheques were issued by the petitioner. On presentation, one cheque was honoured whereas the remaining cheques were dishonoured. As per the complainant-respond No.2, the petitioner neither returned the entire amount nor fulfilled the assurances given to the complainant. During the course of enquiry conducted by the police authorities, it was allegedly found that the petitioner e for carrying on the business of providing overseas placement or visa services and had induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the false promise of obtaining visas. On the basis of the enquiry report and legal opinion, the present FIR came to be Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the to the FIR in question as the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a business which has been given a criminal colour. Learned counsel has there has never been any dishonest intention on the part as the petitioner has made every efforts for processing the contended that the complainant was the immigration procedures and constitute a criminal offence. According to the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. Learned counsel has FIR has been lodged in order to exert pressure the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the has been further contented that nothing is to be ailed to secure the promised visa. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, certain cheques were issued by the petitioner. On presentation, one cheque was honoured whereas the ent No.2, the petitioner neither returned the entire amount nor fulfilled the assurances given to the complainant. During the course of enquiry conducted by the police authorities, it was allegedly found that the petitioner e for carrying on the business of providing overseas placement or visa services and had induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the false promise of obtaining visas. On the came to be Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a business Learned counsel has there has never been any dishonest intention on the part efforts for processing the contended that the complainant was the According to h are has pressure the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the to be AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- recovered from the petitioner and not warranted in the factual contended and undertakes to fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency in case is enlarged on bail. On the basis of these submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner a huge amount of money on the assurance of securing employment visas abroad. According to learned State counsel, despite receiving the amount, neither the promised visas have been arranged nor the money has been returned. Furthermore, the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was not holding the requisite licence under the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act by deception. cheating i interrogation is necessary dismissal 4.1. complainant has vociferously opposed petitioner on the ground that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature as she, while running an immigration consultancy business, induced the complainant to part with a huge amount i.e. false assurance of procuri -28594-2026 recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the not warranted in the factual milieu of the case in hand. contended that the petitioner is ready and willing and undertakes to fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency in case is enlarged on bail. On the basis of these submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that petitioner induced the complainant and his family members to part with amount of money on the assurance of securing employment visas abroad. According to learned State counsel, despite receiving the amount, neither the promised visas have been arranged nor the money has been returned. Furthermore, the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was not holding the requisite licence under the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act which clearly attracts the offence of cheating by deception. Moreover, the allegations disclose a well cheating involving a substantial amount and hence the custodial interrogation is necessary. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature as she, while running an immigration consultancy business, induced the complainant to part with a huge amount i.e. false assurance of procuring United Kingdom work permit visas for his son 3 therefore, the custodial interrogation is of the case in hand. It has been further and willing to join the investigation and undertakes to fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency in case s is enlarged on bail. On the basis of these submissions, the grant of the 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 iterated that induced the complainant and his family members to part with amount of money on the assurance of securing employment visas abroad. According to learned State counsel, despite receiving the amount, neither the promised visas have been arranged nor the money has been returned. Furthermore, the enquiry conducted by the police reflects that the petitioner was not holding the requisite licence under the Punjab Travel which clearly attracts the offence of cheating Moreover, the allegations disclose a well-planned act of nvolving a substantial amount and hence the custodial Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature as she, while running an immigration consultancy business, induced the complainant to part with a huge amount i.e. ₹28,40,000/- on the ng United Kingdom work permit visas for his son custodial interrogation is has been further to join the investigation she is enlarged on bail. On the basis of these submissions, the grant of the posed 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 iterated that induced the complainant and his family members to part with amount of money on the assurance of securing employment visas abroad. According to learned State counsel, despite receiving the amount, neither the promised visas have been arranged nor the money has been police reflects that the petitioner was not holding the requisite licence under the Punjab Travel which clearly attracts the offence of cheating planned act of nvolving a substantial amount and hence the custodial Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature as she, while running an immigration consultancy business, on the ng United Kingdom work permit visas for his son AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and daughter entire amount, the petitioner neither arranged the promised visas nor refunded the money. Ac of the petition in hand. 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are that she was running an immigration consultancy and promised the complainant that she would arrange United Kingdom work permit visas for his On the basis of this assurance, amount of the petitioner complainant issued various cheque, the remaining cheques were dishonoured placed on record before this Co necessary licence required for carrying on the business of providing overseas visa and immigration services. petitioner are that she has amount of money on false assurances and thereafter neither fulfilled her promise nor refunded the entire amount. petitioner money received from him and ca complainant by making false representations regarding the procurement of -28594-2026 and daughter-in-law. It has been further contended that despite receiving the entire amount, the petitioner neither arranged the promised visas nor refunded the money. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth bitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are that she was running an immigration consultancy and promised the complainant that she would arrange United Kingdom work permit visas for his On the basis of this assurance, the petitioner amount of ₹28,40,000/- from the complainant. the petitioner has failed to obtain the promised visas. complainant has demanded the return of his money, the petitioner allegedly various cheques towards repayment. cheque, the remaining cheques were dishonoured placed on record before this Court, the petitioner did not possess the necessary licence required for carrying on the business of providing overseas visa and immigration services. petitioner are that she has induced the complainant to part with a subst amount of money on false assurances and thereafter neither fulfilled her promise nor refunded the entire amount. petitioner has intentionally cheated the complainant, misappropriated the money received from him and caused wrongful financial loss to the complainant by making false representations regarding the procurement of 4 law. It has been further contended that despite receiving the entire amount, the petitioner neither arranged the promised visas nor cordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth in the prosecution version bitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are that she was running an immigration consultancy and promised the complainant that she would arrange United Kingdom work permit visas for his son and daughter-in-law. the petitioner allegedly received a total from the complainant. Despite receiving the money, failed to obtain the promised visas. Furthermore, when the demanded the return of his money, the petitioner allegedly cheques towards repayment. On presentation, except for one cheque, the remaining cheques were dishonoured. As per the material the petitioner did not possess the necessary licence required for carrying on the business of providing overseas visa and immigration services. The allegations raised against the induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on false assurances and thereafter neither fulfilled her promise nor refunded the entire amount. As per stand of the State, intentionally cheated the complainant, misappropriated the used wrongful financial loss to the complainant by making false representations regarding the procurement of law. It has been further contended that despite receiving the entire amount, the petitioner neither arranged the promised visas nor cordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal and have in the prosecution version, bitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are that she was running an immigration consultancy and promised the complainant that she would law. allegedly received a total espite receiving the money, hen the demanded the return of his money, the petitioner allegedly except for one As per the material the petitioner did not possess the necessary licence required for carrying on the business of providing The allegations raised against the antial amount of money on false assurances and thereafter neither fulfilled her the intentionally cheated the complainant, misappropriated the used wrongful financial loss to the complainant by making false representations regarding the procurement of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- visas. At this stage, the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepte petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the ground that daughter- licence for the same repayment does not efface the allegation of with deception 318(4) BNS. documentary evidence and no recovery is to be effected is not ground to grant anticipatory bail such circumstances, necessary to ascertain th money trail attention of this Court is that the petitioner has been extended the concession o compromise having been arrived at between the parties. petitioner has not been able to honour the terms/conditions of the compromise have been dishnoured on presentation. In these circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not adhered to the conditions of the compromise and had misused the concession extended to her. Consequently, the Court bel bail earlier granted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, such conduct of the petitioner is a relevant factor which cannot be -28594-2026 At this stage, the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted as the allegations in the FIR petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the that she could arrange an overseas work visa in-law despite the fact that she was for the same. The subsequent issuance of cheques and partial repayment does not efface the allegation of with deception which are the core ingredient 318(4) BNS. Furthermore, the argument documentary evidence and no recovery is to be effected is not to grant anticipatory bail as the investigation is still in progress. In such circumstances, the custodial interrogation necessary to ascertain the modus operandi trail and verify the role of other persons, if any. Another pertinent nay vital aspect of the matter which craves attention of this Court is that the petitioner has been extended the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court below on the basis of compromise having been arrived at between the parties. petitioner has not been able to honour the terms/conditions of the compromise ibid since the cheque(s) in question given by the peti have been dishnoured on presentation. In these circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not adhered to the conditions of the compromise and had misused the concession extended to her. Consequently, the Court below cancelled the concession of anticipatory bail earlier granted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, such conduct of the petitioner is a relevant factor which cannot be 5 At this stage, the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature allegations in the FIR prima facie indicate that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the he could arrange an overseas work visa for his son and he was not holding any requisite bsequent issuance of cheques and partial repayment does not efface the allegation of dishonest inducement coupled the core ingredients of the offence under Section Furthermore, the argument that the case rests entirely documentary evidence and no recovery is to be effected is not a sufficient investigation is still in progress. In custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be modus operandi, identify other victims, trace the and verify the role of other persons, if any. vital aspect of the matter which craves attention of this Court is that the petitioner has been extended the f anticipatory bail by the Court below on the basis of compromise having been arrived at between the parties. However, the petitioner has not been able to honour the terms/conditions of the since the cheque(s) in question given by the petitioner have been dishnoured on presentation. In these circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not adhered to the conditions of the compromise and had misused the concession extended to ow cancelled the concession of anticipatory bail earlier granted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, such conduct of the petitioner is a relevant factor which cannot be At this stage, the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature te that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the and requisite bsequent issuance of cheques and partial dishonest inducement coupled of the offence under Section that the case rests entirely on a sufficient investigation is still in progress. In may be trace the vital aspect of the matter which craves attention of this Court is that the petitioner has been extended the f anticipatory bail by the Court below on the basis of However, the petitioner has not been able to honour the terms/conditions of the tioner have been dishnoured on presentation. In these circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not adhered to the conditions of the compromise and had misused the concession extended to ow cancelled the concession of anticipatory bail earlier granted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, such conduct of the petitioner is a relevant factor which cannot be AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- overlooked while considering the present petition. reply filed by the State, the is involved in cannot be ignored at this stage. necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail 7. plea for anticipatory bail, the Court must meticulously evaluate several pivotal factors. prima fac has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in effective investigation. and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a rea to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -28594-2026 overlooked while considering the present petition. reply filed by the State, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as is involved in one more case of similar nature which reflects a pattern that cannot be ignored at this stage. The nature and gravity of the offence necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the petitioner being in custody. or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail It is befitting to mention here that while adjudicating the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court must meticulously evaluate several pivotal factors. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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. 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 wide iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon’ble : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 6 overlooked while considering the present petition. Furthermore, as per the does not have clean antecedents as s case of similar nature which reflects a pattern that The nature and gravity of the offence necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be being in custody. Moreover, no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the It is befitting to mention here that while adjudicating the bail plea for anticipatory bail, the Court must meticulously evaluate several At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant as it would necessarily cause impediment 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. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be sonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under as per the she case of similar nature which reflects a pattern that The nature and gravity of the offence necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be Moreover, no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the bail plea for anticipatory bail, the Court must meticulously evaluate several At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant as it would necessarily cause impediment The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be sonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause (1997) 7 Supreme Court held as under AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. attributed to the fair and thorough investigation the petitioner does not deserve the concession of ant factual milieu is hereby dismissed. 9. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 10. July 15, 202 Ajay -28594-2026 “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 case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations 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 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. In view of the gravity of the allegations attributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of ant milieu of the case in hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being 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.” ravity of the allegations, the specific role necessity of custodial interrogation for a this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the of the case in hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. lication(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous 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 such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an 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 the specific role necessity of custodial interrogation for a this Court is of the considered opinion that icipatory bail in the of the case in hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document