No Pre-Arrest Bail In Rs 1 Crore Fake Silver Fraud: Punjab & Haryana HC

Refusing to shield a 19-year-old accused from custodial interrogation in a Rs 1 crore fake silver brick scam, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when denial of police custody risks leaving glaring loopholes in the investigation of serious economic offences.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manisha Batra rejected the pre-arrest bail plea filed by an accused who had been booked alongside his parents for allegedly duping a businesswoman under the guise of supplying pure silver.

Addressing the necessity of police custody, the Court observed:

"For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court."

Background

The dispute stems from an FIR registered under Section 318(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, based on a complaint lodged by one Kiran Lata. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, along with his parents who run a jewellery business under the name Goldy Jewellers, induced her to invest Rs 1 crore for procuring one quintal of pure silver bricks from Delhi to set up a manufacturing business for her son.

Although silver bricks were delivered in installments, they were subsequently found to be counterfeit. Upon confrontation, the accused acknowledged the cheating on their letterhead, promising to refund Rs 1.25 crore or deliver genuine silver. While a small fraction of genuine silver was returned, the accused failed to clear the balance and allegedly issued threats. Investigation revealed that the business shop was leased in the petitioner's name and Rs 1.18 crore was deposited into a joint bank account held by him and his father.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on June 16, 2026. The petitioner claimed he was a 19-year-old student with no active involvement in his father's business and that his father had merely acted as a facilitator on a 0.01% commission basis.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the petitioner's signatures on the written undertaking were undisputed, prima facie demonstrating active connivance. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-43150-2026
Case Title: Vansh Kapoor v. State of Haryana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kushan Dutta, Advocate for the complainant

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 14490