Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Surabh Krishna Upadhyay (also referred to as Surabh Krishna Upadhyay)
  • Respondent: State of Punjab
  • FIR No. 25 dated 16.02.2025 lodged at Police Station Patran, District Patiala under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 338 BNS added during investigation.
  • Allegation: Complainant Sukhdev Ram claimed Upadhyay, owner of Counselling Service Edupedics Services Pvt. Ltd, took a total of ₹21,17,460 from him promising admission of his son Gurpreet Ram in the MBBS course at Grant Government Medical College Mumbai.
  • Payment breakdown: ₹5,00,000 paid in cash and ₹15,00,000 via RTGS; ₹9,00,000 transferred to one account and ₹6,00,000 to another.
  • No admission was secured and the money was not returned; complainant received fake e‑mails and photocopies purportedly from the college, after which communications ceased and the office was found closed, revealing the company to be fictitious.
  • Petitioner’s defence: He has been in custody since 11.08.2025; investigation is complete and challan presented, but charges have not yet been framed. He asserts he was only an employee of Edupedics Services Pvt. Ltd, which is owned by co‑accused Sapna Taneja (Counsellor) and Rakesh Kumar (Director). The complainant signed a consent form for a consultancy fee of ₹20,00,000. Of the ₹9,00,000 that entered the petitioner’s account, ₹4,00,000 was transferred back to the complainant on the day of arrest. The dispute, according to counsel, is with the firm, not the employee.
  • State’s argument: Petitioner is the main accused who cheated the complainant, forged admission letters, and sent fake e‑mails. He is also involved in eight other similar cases where he has previously been released on bail.
  • Judicial observations: The matter is triable by a Magistrate; investigation is complete; trial has not commenced and charges are pending. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. (2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2012(2) SCC 382), the Court held that involvement in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny bail. The truth of the allegations must be determined at trial, which may take time. Detention is not warranted given the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Final Outcome

  • The petition for regular bail is allowed.
  • Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
  • Any pending Criminal Revision Matters (CRM) are disposed of accordingly.

Topics: Legal; Bail; Fraud