IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CRM-M-37855-2026 Date of Decision:23.07.2026 AVINASH KUMAR ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Rahul Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. S.S.Jattan, Advocate for the complainant. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.199 dated 31.05.2026 under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC, 1860 (corresponding Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the BNS) and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt, District Ambala, Haryana. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Radha Gupta, wife of Rama Shankar. It is alleged that the petitioner impersonated himself as a bank employee and induced the complainant to pay money for obtaining a visa and securing admission for her son in a university in Russia. The complainant allegedly paid a total sum of Rs.7,83,998/- towards visa, tickets and other expenses. However, her son was subsequently rusticated from the university on account of fake registration and was deported to India. It is further alleged RENU RAWAT 2026.07.24 17.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh that although the petitioner had represented that the entire process would cost approximately Rs.4,00,000/-, he charged an excessive amount from the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having friendly relations with the complainant and both parties were well known to each other. It is contended that the petitioner had merely introduced the complainant to co-accused Nitish Mehta, who was running an immigration office under the name and style of “New Leads Overseas” at Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. The study visa of the complainant’s son was duly applied for through the said office and was accepted, pursuant to which he travelled to Russia and stayed there for about five months. However, he could not adjust to the environment there and voluntarily returned to India. It is further submitted that he was rusticated from the university on account of non-attendance of classes. The petitioner, being a family friend, was only helping the complainant in seeking refund of the amount from Nitish Mehta. It is argued that the petitioner neither defrauded the complainant nor gave any false assurance or inducement regarding sending anyone abroad. The petitioner is ready to join and cooperate with the investigation; hence, his custodial interrogation is not required and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars, thus prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner used to allure innocent persons on the pretext of sending them abroad. He further submits that an amount of Rs.4 lakh was received in RENU RAWAT 2026.07.24 17.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh the bank account of the petitioner, as reflected in his bank statement. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition has been prayed for. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner introduced the complainant to co-accused Nitish Mehta and, on the assurance extended by the petitioner, the complainant transferred a substantial amount of money into the bank accounts of Nitish Mehta and the petitioner. The petitioner, in connivance with Nitish Mehta, issued a forged certificate regarding the rustication of the complainant's son from the University. The transfer of the aforesaid amount is stated to be substantiated by bank transactions. At this stage, the aforesaid circumstances cannot be ignored and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of effective investigation, no ground is made out for extending the concession of extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 23.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.24 17.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh