IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16224-2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026 AMAN RAJ ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA& ANR. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Bhanu Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.287 dated 18.11.2025 registered under Section 24 of the Immigration Act and Sections 143(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) BNS, 2023 at Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on the pretext of arranging a job in abroad and thereafter sold the petitioner in Myanmar to the persons engaged in fraudulent activities who further demanded 10,000 U.S. Dollars to release him. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged fraud. He further submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged fraud. He submits that the alleged amount of Rs.25,000/- which the complainant paid to the petitioner is actually the amount paid to one Naveen who is an immigrant agent. He submits that the petitioner never made any promise to the complainant to arrange a job for him in Thailand. He further submits that the petitioner is neither running any immigration office nor he is an agent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order dated 13.03.2026.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and he is the main accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He orchestrated a well planned conspiracy. He submits that there are CDRs between the petitioner and the complainant. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; as well as to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud and also to identify victims of similar fraud committed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner induced the complainant to send him abroad by making a false promise of a job, however, he deceitfully sold him in Myanmar to the persons engaged in fraudulent activities. The petitioner was further held captive and a ransom of 10,000 US Dollars was demanded to release the petitioner. Moreover, there are CDRs between the petitioner and the complainant. The requirement of custodial interrogation, as asserted by the State, appears to be justified for effective investigation, recovery of the defrauded amount, and to unearth the complete modus operandi. While considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations agains