‘Major’ fraud: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to man who posed as Army officer, cheated woman of Rs 4 lakh

The judge added that the nature of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the recoveries made following disclosure, and the antecedents of the petitioner cumulatively do not persuade this court to grant regular bail.

‘Major Ganesh Dahiya’

• The petitioner, Ganesh alias Ganesh Bhatt, was arrested in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the Crime Branch Police Station in Chandigarh in June 2025.
• He faces multiple charges, including sections 318 (cheating), 319 (cheating by personation), 204 (personating public servant), 205 (wearing garb/carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intention), 238 (disappearance of evidence/giving false information to screen offender), and 168 (wearing garb/ using token used by soldier) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
• According to the prosecution, Bhatt impersonated an Army officer under the name “Major Ganesh Dahiya”.
• He is alleged to have cheated a woman of Rs 4 lakh and a gold ring after inducing her with a marriage proposal.
• Duped various youths on the pretext of providing recruitment in the armed forces.
• Destroyed evidence by breaking his mobile phone and disposing of the stolen property.

• Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhri argued that the his arrest was vitiated on account of the non-supply of proper and independent grounds of arrest.
• Representing the state, public prosecutor Manish Bansal and additional public prosecutor Ankur Bali submitted that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of a woman Lieutenant Colonel, who alleged that the petitioner impersonated an Army Major, induced her on the pretext of marriage, took a gold ring from her, and got Rs 4 lakh transferred to his account.
• Besides, he allegedly withdrew substantial amounts from her HDFC Bank account by using her ATM card, and emotionally blackmailed her.

Involvement in similar cases

• During the investigation, the petitioner is stated to have disclosed that he posed as “Major Ganesh Dahiya” and duped persons on the pretext of providing jobs in the Army.
• Pursuant to his disclosure statement, recoveries of Army uniform articles (Major rank), uniform belt, and cap were effected from Sector-25, Panchkula. A damaged mobile phone was recovered from Gurgaon, and attempts were made to recover the ATM card.
• It is further alleged that the petitioner destroyed evidence by breaking his mobile phone and throwing the gold ring in a river, leading to addition of further penal provisions.

• The investigation indicates that he was earlier involved in similar cases and multiple FIRs were registered against him in different states on allegations of impersonation and cheating.
• Though it has been argued that in some of the earlier cases he was granted bail and in one case the FIR stands quashed, the mere grant of bail in other cases does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to bail in the present case.
• The court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations.
• The defence pleas raised by the petitioner with regard to previous disputes with police officers, alleged harassment, and other surrounding circumstances are matters which can appropriately be examined during trial and at the stage of appreciation of evidence.

Another case of impersonation

• Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Anil Kumar Kaushik, an accused in a 2023 case involving alleged impersonation of Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials and extortion.
• Justice Goel, in his order, noted that “the seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not a ground seeking cancellation of bail, once the accused has been found entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail and has complied with the conditions imposed therein.”
• It further observed that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely on re-appreciation of facts already considered at the grant stage unless there is proven abuse of liberty.