Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Woman's Anticipatory Bail In ₹7.64 Crore Air India Ticket Fraud Casee

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Air India Ltd's petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to a woman accused in an alleged fraudulent air ticket booking racket that caused the airline a loss of ₹7.64 crore.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal held that the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram had exercised discretion in favour of the accused on relevant considerations, keeping in view her alleged role in the case.

"After going through the entire facts of the case, brought forth by learned counsel(s) for the parties and the impugned order, the Court finds that the order granting anticipatory bail is not based on irrelevant considerations nor has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. There is nothing on record to suggest that after exercise of discretion in her favour, respondent No. 2 has mis-used the concession in any manner."

The case arose from a complaint filed by an Air India representative on December 28, 2023, alleging fraudulent ticket bookings through travel agents S.K. Travels and Charan Singh Travels. The airline alleged that tickets were booked using international credit cards and that payments were subsequently reversed through chargebacks after passengers had travelled.

An FIR was registered on September 20, 2024. The investigation revealed 236 such bookings, resulting in a total alleged loss of ₹7.64 crore. Air India challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order dated April 17, 2026 granting anticipatory bail to the accused, who was the Managing Director and 70% shareholder of Ira Entrepreneurs Pvt Ltd. She was granted regular bail on August 14, 2026.

The High Court observed that the trial court had considered the accused's alleged role and the material available on record before granting anticipatory bail. It noted that the investigation had been underway since 2024, yet no evidence had been collected against her warranting custodial interrogation.

The allegations were primarily documentary in nature, and the court had directed her to cooperate with the investigation and furnish relevant records. The High Court therefore found the order to be well reasoned and held that there was no sufficient ground to conclude that the trial court had ignored material facts or exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Court further noted that the chargesheet had already been filed and the accused had been granted regular bail on August 14, 2026. It held that although an order granting anticipatory bail could be challenged by the complainant if material facts or crucial circumstances had been overlooked, the position changed once regular bail was granted.

Accepting the contention that the challenge to the anticipatory bail order had become infructuous following the grant of regular bail, the Court dismissed Air India's petition. It clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the criminal case.

For the Petitioner: Advocates Sameer Sachdev, Rohan Sachdev, Rakesh Kumar, Mohit Kumar, Hrithik Nain

For the Respondents: Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana, Advocates Samay Sandhawalia, Gurleen Singh, Aditi Sharma, Manvi Singh Gahlot