Chandigarh Court Declares Arrest Illegal, Orders Immediate Release in High-Value Immigration Fraud Case
A district court in Chandigarh has ordered the immediate release of an accused involved in a Rs 67-lakh immigration fraud case, ruling that his arrest was illegal due to significant procedural violations and non-compliance with mandatory legal safeguards. The court's decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to constitutional and statutory requirements in law enforcement actions.
Arrest and Court Proceedings
The accused, Abhinav Dogra, who allegedly operated an immigration firm, was arrested by the Sector 17 police on February 3, 2026, and produced before the district court the following day. The police sought a two-day remand for further investigation, but the court refused this request and instead ordered Dogra's immediate release. The court held that the arrest did not comply with essential legal requirements, particularly the failure to provide written grounds for the arrest.
Legal Arguments and Violations
An application filed on behalf of the accused argued for his release based on non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Advocate Abhay Joshi, representing Dogra, contended that the investigating officer did not supply the grounds of arrest in writing, a violation highlighted by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra. Joshi asserted that Dogra was falsely implicated and that the police breached statutory safeguards designed to protect individual rights.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the Union Territory presented documents including the arrest memo, notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and a disclosure statement. However, the court noted that the column for information regarding the grounds of arrest was left blank by the investigating officer, with only stereotypical remarks filled in. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sachin Yadav observed that no details of the case were disclosed in this information, rendering the arrest procedurally deficient.
Court's Ruling and Observations
The court, referencing Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Supreme Court judgment, stated that grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee in writing. Since this was not done in Dogra's case, the court ruled that he was entitled to immediate release from custody. However, the court clarified that the investigating officer retains the liberty to proceed against the accused again after following the due process of law, ensuring that the investigation can continue legally.
Background of the Fraud Case
The case involves allegations of immigration fraud totaling Rs 67.34 lakh, based on complaints filed by Paras Chhabra of Mauli Jagran and Harpreet Kaur of Sector 34. Chhabra alleged that he paid Rs 15.21 lakh for promised permanent residency in Canada, which was never secured, while Kaur alleged a payment of Rs 52.13 lakh under similar false pretenses. Both accused, including Dogra and another individual, Gulshan Tyagi (who remains in judicial custody), allegedly operated Fly Out Immigration in Sector 17.
Rise in Immigration Fraud in Chandigarh
Immigration fraud cases have been increasing in Chandigarh, with many firms shutting down and fleeing after complaints arise. Official police data from 2021 to 2025 shows that 433 cases of cheating related to immigration fraud were registered, involving nearly Rs 74 crore. During this period, police investigations identified 232 fraudulent immigration firms, highlighting the rapid growth of illegal consultancies in the city. The number of cases rose from 11 in 2021 to a peak of 194 in 2024, with 130 cases reported in 2025, indicating fewer but larger-scale frauds.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal protections in place to prevent arbitrary arrests and the need for strict adherence to procedural norms in criminal investigations. The court's decision reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding individual rights while allowing for lawful investigative processes to continue.
