The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, and bail proceedings cannot be used for money recovery, focusing on the nature of accusations and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The informant, Rahul Kumar, filed a complaint before the police, asserting that he is a resident of District Una and is engaged in property dealing and construction activity. He has one daughter. He wanted to provide a good education to her. He saw an advertisement for M/s Harnidh Overseas Pathway Education (HOPE) stating that it was a branch of M/s Harnidh Overseas Pathway Education (HOPE) of the UK (United Kingdom), which provides services of visa and employment in the U.K. The informant called the office, and he was assured that HOPE would arrange for the work permit and job for Mrs. Sonali Thakur, the informant’s wife, as a skilled worker. He was also assured that he would be getting a permanent resident (PR) in the U.K., he would be inducted as a partner in one of their ventures in the U.K., and his share would be increased subsequently. An amount of Rs. thirty lakhs was demanded to arrange a visa and for travel expenses. The matter was settled at Rs. twenty seven lakhs plus visa fee and air tickets on an actual basis. The amount was transferred to the account of the petitioner, Hardeep Singh, Managing Director of HOPE. The informant and his family members were sent from India with an assurance that the petitioner would pick them up at the Airport and make arrangements for their stay, but no person met at the airport to take them to their place of stay. The informant contacted some employees of the company who took them to Luton. The informant had to stay at Gurudwara in Luton, where a small room was available. The informant’s wife was told that no job was available for her. The informant was also not inducted as a partner. The informant arranged money from his relatives in India and returned. He demanded the money deposited by him in the account of the petitioner, but the money was not returned. The police registered FIR No. 275 of 2024, dated 06.09.2024, based on these allegations for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sadar, District Una, H.P. and commenced the investigation.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking pre- arrest bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner never made any representation or false promise of employment in the U.K. The informant sought the services of the petitioner to secure a visa for his family, which was duly provided. The informant remained in the UK for a considerable period. He could not settle in the U.K. and returned to India. The petitioner entered into a compromise with the informant. He handed over two cheques of Rs. four lakhs each to the informant. He paid Rs. four lakhs in cash to the informant, and the informant issued a receipt to this effect. He transferred the balance amount of Rs. four lakhs in various installments. The informant presented the cheques which were dishonoured, and he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“in short NI Act”). The incident occurred in Jalandhar, and an FIR in Una could not have been lodged. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner has no criminal history. He would join the investigation as and when directed to do so and would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the informant filed a complaint before the police, the police seized various documents and recorded the statements of witnesses. The police searched for the petitioner, but he could not be traced. The other persons involved in the commission of the offence are yet to be arrested. No other FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s. Bhupinder Gupta, Mr Vivek Thakur and Mr Harish Janjhi, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent-State and Mr Lokender Paul, learned counsel for the i