The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of collecting more than ₹10 lakh from a family on the assurance of securing bail for a jailed relative and allegedly showing them a fabricated bail order.
Justice Deepak Gupta held that the allegations were serious and that custodial interrogation was necessary because the investigation involved electronic evidence and claims relating to a purported forged judicial document.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Jaspreet Kaur and her brother. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly represented that he had influence with senior officials and members of the judiciary and could secure bail for Jaspreet Kaur's husband, who was lodged in jail.
The complainants claimed that they transferred money through bank transactions and also paid cash on different occasions. They further alleged that they were shown a bail order purportedly issued by the High Court, which later appeared suspicious. The total amount allegedly paid was around ₹10.92 lakh.
The petitioner denied the allegations and argued that he was a practicing advocate who had been professionally engaged in the matter. He contended that any disagreement regarding fees was civil in nature and had been wrongly converted into a criminal case.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that the allegations went beyond a simple dispute over professional fees.
Justice Gupta observed,
“Merely because the petitioner is a practicing advocate cannot constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail.”
The Court found that the investigation had collected material suggesting receipt of substantial amounts from the complainants. It also took note of the allegation that a forged bail order of the High Court had been shown to them.
“The seriousness of such an allegation cannot be understated,”
the bench observed, adding that any attempt to fabricate judicial records directly affects the administration of justice.
The Court also noted that forensic examination of electronic devices was still underway and investigators were attempting to recover digital records and trace the source of the alleged document.
Decision
Considering the nature of the accusations, the amount allegedly involved, the ongoing forensic investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation, the High Court held that the case was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.
The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were limited to deciding the bail plea and would not influence the merits of the trial.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anurag Khullar @ Vishal v. U.T. Chandigarh
Case Number: CRM-M-32965-2026
Judge: Justice Deepak Gupta
Decision Date: 15 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)