The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the prevention of harassment and unjustified detention of the accused with the need for a free, fair, and full investigation when considering the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant praying, inter alia, for the grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 187/2022 dated 15.03.2022 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") at Police Station Alipur, New Delhi, submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has no role concerning the allegations in the FIR.

2. The FIR was registered on 15.03.2022 subsequent to filing of a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging that the complainant has been duped for a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs by the present applicant.

3. It was alleged that the present applicant came in contact with the complainant with the oblique motive to dishonestly deceive him, following the assurances and the promise to procure the job of a lab assistant since the complainant failed to pass the Service Selection Board exam and sought help from the applicant. In lieu of the aforesaid, the applicant demanded a sum of Rs 5 lakhs and settled for Rs 4.5 lakhs, which was given to the applicant on 05.09.2021. The said promise was not fulfilled by the applicant and, thereby, the applicant defrauded the complainant of the same.

4. The applicant apprehending the arrest, moved the learned Sessions Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail, and by the order dated 02.06.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said bail application which led to filing of the present application.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence whatsoever is made out and the complainant has falsely implicated him.

6. He submits that the applicant is a Central Government Employee, working as an Assistant Communication Officer in Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) under the Ministry of Home Affairs for the last 15 years.

7. He submits that the applicant did not know the complainant directly, and it was through the uncle of the complainant, Prakash, that he came in contact with the complainant.

8. He further urges that Mr. Prakash had a grudge against the applicant and after he, along with the complainant, failed to malign the social image of the applicant by making complaints before various authorities, got the instant FIR registered, alleging that the applicant defrauded the complainant to the amount of Rs 4.5 lakhs in furtherance of the promise to procure the job of Lab Assistant for him since he was unable to pass the exam of Service Selection Board, Rajasthan for the direct recruitment of Lab Assistant.

9. He further submits that in addition to the fact that the applicant left his office at around 8:15 am on 04.09.2021 and was visiting his native village, namely Ajab Pura, Alwar, Rajasthan, on 05.09.2021, he neither made any demand nor received any money from the complainant.

10. Learned counsel submits that there has been a substantial delay of approximately five months in the registration of the FIR, and the complaints made by the complainant bear several incongruities.

11. The learned APP for the State, assisted by the learned senior counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present bail application.

12. They submitted that the Service Selection Board, Rajasthan, announced approximately 12000 vacancies for the direct recruitment of Lab assistants in 2018 and that the complainant took the corresponding exam but failed it.

13. The complainant, aggrieved by the result, came in contact with the present applicant seeking help. Apart from enticing the complainant to procure a job of Lab Assistant, the applicant settled for an amount of Rs. 4.5 lakhs in exchange for the same. The complainant paid the said amount on 05.09.2021 to the present applicant. However, the applicant neither arranged the alleged job nor refunded the said amount and had started extending threats of dire consequences to the complainant.

14. Learned counsel further relies on the reply to the notice u/s 91, sent