Rajan Chopra vs. State Of Punjab
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
CRM-M-26118-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CRM-M-26118-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2026 Rajan Chopra
...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab
...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate
for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
Through the instant petition, filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, at Police Station City-I, Sangrur, District Sangrur.
Vide order dated 08.05.2026, passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. The operative part of the order dated 08.05.2026 reads as under: “…It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the dispute is purely of civil nature which has been given criminal colour only in order to harass the petitioner. He submits that there is an alternative remedy to file civil suit MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.18 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26118-2026 (O&M) -2-
and thus, the present FIR is not maintainable. He thus, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Notice of motion. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf the complainant and opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Adjourned to 28.07.2026. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.”
Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation on 24.05.2026 and he is not required for custodial interrogation.
However, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that he had been purchasing goods from the petitioner and his brother Rahul Chopra for about three years. Pursuant to the negotiations concluded on 06.08.2025, the complainant paid Rs.2,02,80,347/- on 08.08.2025 into the bank accounts furnished by the accused towards purchase of goods. However, despite MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.18 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26118-2026 (O&M) -3-
repeated assurances, the petitioner and co-accused neither delivered the goods nor returned the money and thereafter became untraceable. It is further submitted that the complainant initially approached the SSP, Sangrur, on 13.08.2025, but the complaint was subsequently closed as certain material facts had inadvertently been omitted. Subsequently, upon receiving summons and notices from the GST Department, the complainant came to know that the petitioner and co-accused had used fictitious firms and generated fake invoices in the name of the complainant's firm, resulting in a GST liability, which the complainant was compelled to discharge. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and co-accused had created and operated several fictitious firms using the particulars of their relatives and that, in all, the complainant suffered a loss of approximately Rs.5,05,95,282/-. The allegations related to GST fraud were not properly investigated and, therefore, the complainant submitted a supplementary complaint dated 11.04.2026, furnishing details of 20 firms and transactions involving the petitioner and co- accused, besides informing the police about similar complaints made by other victims. It is, thus, argued that the investigation is required to cover the entire fraudulent scheme and the connected GST fraud committed by the accused. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and as fairly conceded by learned State counsel, his custodial interrogation is not required. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding GST fraud are subject matter of investigation and no specific material has been brought on record necessitating the petitioner’s MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.18 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26118-2026 (O&M) -4-
custodial arrest. It is, therefore, prayed that the interim bail granted to the petitioner be made absolute.
This Court has heard the rival submissions.
The allegations levelled by learned counsel for the complainant, including those relating to the GST fraud and the involvement of the petitioner in the creation and operation of fictitious firms, are matters which would require investigation and appreciation of evidence. At this stage, such disputed allegations cannot be conclusively appreciated for determining the entitlement of the petitioner to anticipatory bail, particularly when no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is considered necessary by the Investigating Agency. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court and learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has fairly submitted that his custodial interrogation is not required. In these circumstances, this Court finds no justification for withdrawing the protection already granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 08.05.2026, granting concession of interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS.
It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
2026
(MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned
Yes/No Whether reportable
Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.18 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.