Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Multi-Lakh Basmati Rice Fraud Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly denied anticipatory bail to an accused involved in a significant cheating case concerning basmati rice, valued at multiple lakhs, which was registered in Punjab's Sangrur district. Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the petition filed by Sahil Garg, who sought pre-arrest relief in connection with an FIR lodged at the Dirba police station.
Legal Proceedings and Court's Stern Rebuke
The FIR was registered under sections 318 (4), 317 (2), and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on December 9, 2025. In a strong move, the court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Garg for filing two separate petitions for anticipatory bail and submitting a false affidavit. Justice Goel observed that such conduct was not merely a procedural error but a blatant attempt at forum shopping and an affront to the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
The court noted, "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." This highlights the judiciary's zero-tolerance for misuse of legal processes.
Details of the Cheating Allegations
The case stems from a complaint filed by the owner of Jainam Foods, a basmati rice dealer based in Sangrur. According to the complaint, on October 24, 2025, three individuals, including the petitioner Sahil Garg, approached the complainant 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 compared to Rs 6,500—and assured payment within 10 to 12 days of loading. Between October 26 and November 5, 2025, the complainant supplied approximately 100 metric tonnes of basmati rice and 30 metric tonnes of super mongra rice through multiple consignments.
To gain confidence and induce further supply, an amount of Rs 8 lakh was reportedly transferred as security. However, the remaining payment was allegedly not made, and the accused later stopped responding to calls and issued threats, according to the complaint.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter arose from a purely commercial transaction and was unjustly given a criminal colour. It was contended that the agreed payment cycle was 37 days, with the 10 to 12-day clause relating only to a discount condition. The defence also submitted that Rs 8 lakh had already been paid and that the firm's bank account was frozen prior to the FIR registration, preventing further payments.
Sahil Garg, identified as a practising advocate and member of the Bar, denied involvement in the day-to-day business operations of the firms and offered to join the investigation. In opposition, the state submitted that Garg was specifically named in the FIR and actively participated in negotiations and the lifting of consignments.
Furthermore, the state highlighted that multiple FIRs of a similar nature were registered against Garg within a short span, suggesting a pattern of conduct indicative of fraudulent activities.
Court's Final Decision
After hearing all parties involved, the bench dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to upholding justice and preventing abuse of legal mechanisms in cases involving alleged financial fraud.
