The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made absolute the interim anticipatory bail granted to a petitioner accused in an alleged cheating, criminal conspiracy and fraud case, observing that allegations concerning GST fraud and the creation of fictitious firms would require investigation and appreciation of evidence.
The bench of Justice Manisha Batra noted that the investigating agency did not consider the petitioner’s custodial interrogation necessary.
The proceedings arose from a commercial transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and his brother, Rahul Chopra. According to the complainant, he had been purchasing goods from them for approximately three years.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The complainant alleged that following negotiations concluded on August 6, 2025, he paid ₹2,02,80,347 on August 8, 2025 into bank accounts furnished by the accused towards the proposed purchase of goods. Despite repeated assurances, the goods were allegedly neither supplied nor was the money returned. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused subsequently became untraceable.
The complainant initially approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, on August 13, 2025. However, that complaint was subsequently closed after certain material facts were stated to have been inadvertently omitted.
A significant aspect of the dispute concerned allegations of GST-related fraud. According to the complainant, he subsequently received summons and notices from the GST Department, through which he allegedly came to know that fictitious firms had been used and fake invoices had been generated in the name of his firm.
The complainant alleged that the transactions resulted in a GST liability which he was compelled to discharge. He further alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused had created and operated several fictitious firms by using the particulars of their relatives. The total financial loss claimed by the complainant was stated to be approximately ₹5,05,95,282.
According to the complainant, the GST-related allegations had not been properly investigated initially. He therefore submitted a supplementary complaint on April 11, 2026, providing details of 20 firms and transactions allegedly involving the petitioner and the co-accused and also informing the police about similar complaints allegedly made by other victims.
The complainant consequently argued that the investigation needed to examine not merely the original transaction but the alleged larger fraudulent scheme and the connected GST-related activities.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Earlier, on May 8, 2026, the High Court had granted him interim protection from arrest and directed him to join the investigation.
The interim protection was accompanied by conditions requiring the petitioner to remain available for interrogation when required, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
The State subsequently informed the High Court that the petitioner had joined the investigation on May 24, 2026. More importantly, the investigating agency stated that he was not required for custodial interrogation.
This position of the investigating agency became an important factor in the Court’s decision to continue the protection from arrest.
The High Court considered the allegations regarding GST fraud and the alleged creation and operation of fictitious firms to be matters requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence.
The bench observed that such disputed allegations could not be conclusively assessed at the stage of deciding the petitioner’s entitlement to anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigating agency itself did not consider custodial interrogation necessary.
The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had complied with the earlier direction and joined the investigation. The State’s submission that custodial interrogation was not required therefore weighed significantly with the Court.
The High Court found no justification for withdrawing the protection that had already been granted to the petitioner.
The Court accordingly allowed the petition and made the interim order dated May 8, 2026, granting interim bail, absolute, subject to the conditions contained in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The order does not amount to a finding that the allegations of cheating, fraud or GST-related wrongdoing are false. Rather, the Court expressly confined its consideration to the question of anticipatory bail.
The High Court specifically clarified that the observations contained in its order were made solely for deciding the present bail petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
