Gulshan Tyagi v. Union Territory, Chandigarh And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.216 Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 GULSHAN TYAGI

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANR ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The present is the first regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 160 dated 16.11.2025, registered under Sections 406 IPC [Section 316(2) BNS, 2023], 420 IPC [Section 318(4) BNS, 2023], 120-B IPC [Section 61(2) BNS, 2023] and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983 at Police Station Sector-17 Central, Chandigarh. 2.

Briefly stated, the complainant Paras Chhabra alleged that after completing his B.E. from Chitkara University, Baddi, he intended to go abroad for employment and came in contact with the accused persons, who allegedly assured him assistance in obtaining Canadian work permit and Permanent Residency. It is alleged that co-accused Abhinav Dogra, operating from Chetnaya Education Centre, Mohali, represented that he could secure PR within four to six months and induced the complainant to

join IELTS coaching run by him and his wife. It is further alleged that approximately ₹25 lakhs were demanded towards processing charges, out of which ₹3 lakhs and subsequently ₹20,21,074/- were paid by the complainant. Despite assurances of refund and visa processing, neither was the complainant sent abroad nor was the amount returned, except ₹2 lakhs allegedly refunded in May 2025. On these allegations, the FIR was registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and a retired Principal who has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR is founded on false and unfounded allegations allegedly made at the behest of co-accused Abhinav Dogra. It is further submitted that, in another similar FIR, the petitioner has already been granted regular bail by the learned CJM, Chandigarh, and that his arrest in another FIR has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner relies upon his bank account statements to show financial transparency. It is also contended that the co-accused Abhinav Dogra has been granted anticipatory bail and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to parity. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Viren Sibal, APP, for the Union Territory, Chandigarh accepts notice on behalf of respondent-U.T. Chandigarh, and Mr. Rakesh Chander Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, appeared through video conferencing and has opposed the present regular bail application.

6.

Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that serious allegations of cheating and fraud under the pretext of arranging visas for sending persons abroad have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Simranjit Singh Bal and Abhinav Dogra, induced the complainants to part with huge amounts on the assurance of arranging Canadian visas through Flyout Immigration. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation, it has surfaced that the complainants paid more than Rs.70 lakhs in total to the accused persons and a sum of Rs.13,18,224/- was specifically transferred in the account of the present petitioner Gulshan Tyagi.

It is further submitted that the petitioner actively participated in the immigration business, leveraged his professional background to gain the trust of clients and played a significant role in inducing the complainants. Learned State counsel further argues that two more FIRs of similar nature are already registered against the petitioner and there is every likelihood that in case he is released on bail, he may influence witnesses or indulge in similar activities again. 7.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail. The allegations pertain to organized cheating of innocent persons under the pretext of sending them abroad and extracting huge amounts from them on false assurances. The material collected during investigation prima facie reveals that an amount of Rs.13,18,224/- was directly credited into the account of the present petitioner. The role attributed to the petitioner is

distinct and more active in nature as he is alleged to have associated himself with the immigration business, gained confidence of the complainants and facilitated the fraudulent transactions. The case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing from co-accused Abhinav Dogra and Simranjit Singh, who are stated to be on bail, inasmuch as specific monetary transactions have been traced to the account of the present petitioner and his involvement has surfaced during investigation from the bank account analysis. Furthermore, two other criminal cases of similar nature are also stated to be pending against him.

8.

In view of the seriousness of allegations and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 10.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 11.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No