Rahul Chopra vs. State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana High Court, 18 August 2026

CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208-2 CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2026 Rahul Chopra

...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Puneet Bhushan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.2/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 19.06.2026, passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. The operative part of the order dated 19.06.2026 reads as under: “…Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who has absolutely no concern or connection with the allegations levelled by the complainant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While mentioning the factual backdrop of the case, learned counsel contends that as per allegations leveled by complainant, certain automobile parts/material were MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.19 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) -2-

ordered by him and in lieu thereof, he (complainant) had made payments amounting to Rs.2,02,80,347/-, at the instance of petitioner and his brother i.e co-accused Rajan Chopra. The said amount was transferred in the accounts of four separate firms, the details of which have been mentioned in para 4 of the petition. However, it is the specific contention of learned counsel that petitioner is not in any which way connected with any of the said four accounts. It is further contended that dispute is purely civil in nature but deliberately has been given a criminal color only with a view to harass the petitioner and his brother, as also to extract illegal monetary benefit from them. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to order dated 08.05.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-26118-2026 vide which concession of interim bail has been granted to co-accused Rajan Chopra. It has thus been prayed that on grounds of parity as well, similar treatment be meted out to present petitioner. Heard. Documents perused. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of therespondent-State and prays for some time to file status report. List on 28.07.2026. Meanwhile, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is hereby directed to join investigation within seven days from today and cooperate in the same. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.19 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) -3-

Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. To be listed along with CRM-M-26118-2026. Complainant be impleaded as respondent No.2 on or before the next date of hearing.”

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation on 26.06.2026 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 Rajan 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 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.19 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) -4-

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 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.19 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34144-2026 (O&M) -5-

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 19.06.2026, 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.

18.08.

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 2026.08.19 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document