Punjab: HC dismisses pre-arrest bail plea in rice cheating case
The Punjab and Haryana high court has denied anticipatory bail to an accused in a multi-lakh basmati rice cheating case registered in Punjab’s Sangrur district.
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the petition of Sahil Garg seeking pre-arrest relief in an FIR registered at Dirba police station under sections 318 (4), 317 (2) and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on Dec 9, 2025.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Garg for filing two petitions for anticipatory bail and giving a false affidavit.
“Such contumacious conduct is not merely a procedural lapse but a blatant attempt at ‘forum shopping’ and an affront to the sanctity of judicial proceedings. This attempt at clandestinely ‘testing the waters’ of judicial discretion by moving multiple petitions, espousing exactly the same cause of action, was tantamount to playing fraud with the justice dispensation system,” observed the HC.
The cheating case against Garg related to a complaint filed by the owner of Sangrur’s Jainam Foods dealing in basmati rice. He alleged that on Oct 24, 2025, three individuals, including the petitioner, approached him posing as traders and exporters operating under the names “M/s Ganga Overseas” and “Ganga Foods” in Karnal.
They allegedly offered to purchase rice at a rate higher than the prevailing market price, Rs 6,681 per quintal against Rs 6,500, and assured payment within 10-12 days of loading. The complainant supplied approximately 100 metric tonnes of basmati rice and 30 metric tonnes of super mongra rice between Oct 26 and Nov 5, 2025, through multiple consignments.
An amount of Rs 8 lakh was reportedly transferred as security to gain confidence and induce further supply. However, the remaining payment was allegedly not made, and the accused later stopped responding to calls and allegedly issued threats.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter arose out of a purely commercial transaction and was given a criminal colour. It was contended that the agreed payment cycle was 37 days and that the 10-12-day clause related only to a discount condition. The defence also submitted that Rs 8 lakh was already paid and that the firm’s bank account was frozen prior to registration of the FIR, preventing further payments.
The petitioner, a practising advocate and member of the Bar, denied involvement in day-to-day business operations of the firms and offered to join the investigation.
Opposing the plea, the state submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and actively participated in negotiations and lifting of consignments. It was further submitted that multiple FIRs of a similar nature were registered against him within a short span, suggesting a pattern of conduct.
After hearing all the parties, the bench dismissed the petition.
This article has been republished from The Times of India.