JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail to them in a case FIR No.39, dated 21.03.2023 registered under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals Regulations Act, 2012, at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha, District Patiala.

2. As per facts of the case, the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Deepak Kamra son of Bisandas Singh. It was alleged that the complainant is the owner of Deepak Hotel and Restaurant. One Amandeep Singh used to do the work of making combine for a long time in the name of M/s Carbro Agro Tech and had relationship with the complainant. Younger son of the complainant, namely, Sahil Kamra aged about 29/30 years had been working with him. Amandeep Singh came to his hotel about 7 months ago with his brother Simran Singh and father Surinder Singh i.e. the petitioners, who told the complainant that they also do the work of sending the children to foreign countries and settled many children in Canada after obtaining work permit. They also advised the complainant to send his son Sahil to Canada by providing a work permit and asked for a sum of Rs.7 lacs for the same. The complainant made a payment of Rs.4,25,000/- to Amandeep Singh, who gave him receipts as well. Amandeep Singh gave the complainant post dated cheques as security in case work is not done, the money would be refunded. However, despite his repeated request neither the work was done nor money was refunded. The complainant presented the cheques issued by Amandeep Singh before the Union Bank of India, but on presentation of the same, the same were bounced. Request was made to take legal action against the accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala praying for grant of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court declined the same vide order dated 20.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that the complainant is running a Dhaba by the name of Deepak Dhaba. He submits that the cheques were given by Amanpreet Singh as expenses towards the food served to his customers and hence there was no transaction of money as alleged in the complaint against the petitioners. He submits that totally vague and obnoxious allegations are levelled by the complainant against the petitioners. He further submits that there are no allegations regarding the petitioners taking money from the complainant. He submits that from the reading of the allegations, no case for custodial interrogation of the petitioners is made out and thus, they deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel on instructions has submitted before this Court in all there are three accused in this case and no one is arrested till date. He has submitted that the case is under investigation. He further submits that each petitioner is facing prosecution in four other cases. He submits that both of them are habitual offenders. He also submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners for having conspired with the co-accused and thus duping the complainant of heavy amount. It is submitted that grant of bail to the petitioners would seriously hamper the investigation and thus, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the c