Bail granted absent specific cheating allegation, with money deposit explained as legitimate business transaction via bills; pending recovery no bar when investigation joined and presumption of innocence applies.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Sequel to order dated 30.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in case FIR No.0063 of 2022 dated 24.02.2022 registered at Police Station Nurpur District Kangra, H.P under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, respondent/State has filed status report.

2. Close scrutiny of the status report reveals that on 24.02.2022, complainant, namely Praveen Kumar lodged a complaint at Police Chowki Gangath, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P alleging therein that co-accused namely Jyoti Kumar made him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- in bank account of bail petitioner with an assurance that he will get him job in MES. He further alleged that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was also deposited in bank account No.450010110015791/IFSC BKID0004500 on the assurance of Jyoti Kumar. He alleged that though on the assurance of co-accused Jyoti Kumar, he deposited Rs.11,90,000/- as detailed herein above, but neither he was provided any job nor money has been returned to him. In the afore background, FIR came to be lodged against petitioner as well as co-accused namely Jyoti Kumar and Lala Lohar, who is resident of Uttar Pradesh.

3. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that co-accused Jyoti Kumar in connivance with present bail petitioner defrauded complainant Praveen Kumar. Though, there is no specific allegation of assurance, if any, given by petitioner herein to the complainant for providing job, but in nutshell case of the prosecution is that both Jyoti Kumar and present bail petitioner, who is resident of Jammu, in connivance with each other firstly hatched conspiracy of extracting money from innocent people like complainant and thereafter got the money transferred in the bank account of the petitioner.

4. Co-accused, namely Jyoti Kumar, who is said to be the kingpin, is absconding, whereas present bail petitioner, apprehending his arrest, approached the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur District Kangra, H.P by way of anticipatory bail petition. Initially, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by learned Court below subject to his joining investigation. Though, petitioner joined investigation but yet learned Court below having taken note of status report filed by respondent/State passed order dated 20.11.2024, rejecting his bail petition.

5. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and there is no specific allegation of false assurance, if any, given by the petitioner to provide job to the complainant, petitioner has approached this Court in instant proceedings for grant of bail.

6. Mr. Manish Datwalia, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse contents of FIR states that at no point of time, petitioner herein, had any type of contact with the complainant. He submitted that as per contents of FIR, co-accused Jyoti Kumar had assured the complainant to provide job in MES and he had only asked complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- in two different accounts. He states that though a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- has been deposited in the account of petitioner but that was not for providing job, if any, to the complainant, rather, same was to be paid by Jyoti Kumar to the petitioner, from whom, he had purchased a bulk of dry fruits. Mr. Datwalia, states that to substantiate aforesaid plea of the petitioner, he has already made available copies of bills to the police but yet he is being harassed unnecessary.

7. While fairly admitting the factum of joining investigation by petit