The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that anticipatory bail may be granted when the complainant’s primary grievance is resolved and the accused demonstrates full cooperation with the investigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that the gravity of an offence alone cannot override the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21, particularly where restitution has been made and no flight risk exists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Adnan Chauhan, was named in FIR No. 150/2025 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram, under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), for allegedly participating in a fraudulent investment scheme promoted via Instagram and WhatsApp. The complainant, Ashima Garg, claimed she invested ₹8,33,000 based on false promises of high returns from a fake stock trading group. Of this amount, ₹2,78,000 was credited to the petitioner’s bank account.
Procedural History
- 28.04.2025: FIR registered against petitioner under BNS Section 318(4)
- 08.09.2025: Petitioner filed anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- 08.09.2025: Court issued ad-interim anticipatory bail, directing petitioner to cooperate with investigation and surrender passport
- 05.10.2025: Petitioner appeared before investigating agency as directed
- 06.09.2025: Complainant filed notarized affidavit confirming receipt of ₹2,78,000 and no objection to bail
- 05.03.2026: Court made interim bail absolute after verifying compliance
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought protection from arrest and confirmation of the ad-interim anticipatory bail order, emphasizing his willingness to fully cooperate with the investigation and his compliance with all prior court directions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS can be granted when the complainant’s financial loss has been fully reimbursed, the accused has cooperated with the investigation, and there is no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the petitioner had already repaid the entire amount attributed to him, thereby satisfying the complainant’s grievance. He further submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily joined the investigation on 05.10.2025, complied with all interim conditions - including surrendering his passport or filing an affidavit of non-possession - and was ready to continue cooperating. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest is not automatic in non-heinous offences where cooperation is assured.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the grant of bail, confirming through its status report that the petitioner had complied with all directions. The Additional Advocate General acknowledged the complainant’s affidavit and did not contest the petitioner’s conduct or the absence of any threat to the investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS, which pertains to fraudulent inducement in digital platforms, and noted that while the offence is serious, it is not inherently violent or terror-related. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s satisfaction is a material factor in bail jurisprudence, particularly in financial fraud cases where restitution has been made.
"Since petitioner has already joined the investigation and grievance of the complainant has already been satisfied qua the petitioner; ad-interim bail order dated 08.09.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute."
The Court held that the petitioner’s voluntary compliance with the investigation, coupled with the complainant’s explicit withdrawal of objection, negated any reasonable apprehension of tampering or flight. The Court further noted that the conditions imposed - surrender of passport, prior permission for travel, and continued cooperation - were sufficient safeguards. The Court rejected any mechanical application of bail denial based on the nature of the charge, instead applying a proportionality test grounded in Article 21 and the principle of presumption of innocence.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court made the ad-interim anticipatory bail order absolute, holding that anticipatory bail is warranted when restitution is complete, cooperation is demonstrated, and the complainant has no objection. The petitioner is protected from arrest subject to compliance with the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Complainant’s Satisfaction Is a Decisive Factor
- Practitioners must now document and submit affidavits from complainants confirming restitution and lack of objection as part of anticipatory bail applications
- Courts are likely to treat complainant satisfaction as a strong mitigating factor in non-violent economic offences
- Failure to obtain such affidavits may weaken the petitioner’s case even if repayment occurred
Cooperation Must Be Proven, Not Just Promised
- Voluntary appearance before investigating agencies must be recorded and submitted as proof
- Courts will scrutinize timelines: delayed cooperation may negate the benefit of restitution
- Petitioners should file affidavits of compliance with interim orders to avoid dismissal
Passport Surrender Is Now Standard in Cyber Fraud Bail
- Courts are increasingly mandating surrender of passports or sworn affidavits of non-possession in cases involving digital fraud
- Non-compliance with this condition will result in automatic vacation of bail, as explicitly stated in the order
- Advocates must advise clients to prepare passport affidavits at the time of filing the petition
