JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') read with Section 528 of BNSS for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), in FIR No.12 dated 24.01.2025 under Sections 406, 420 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station BPTP, Faridabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that respondent No.2 introduced the petitioner to proprietor of a real estate firm and on the basis of his inducement, the petitioner paid Rs.25.00 lakhs. He assured the petitioner that remaining amount will be invested in another plot to be purchased in 50% partnership in the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.2. He also promised that till the possession is given by the company, the amount invested by the petitioner would be doubled. On the false assurance made by respondent No.2, the petitioner transferred Rs.25.00 lakhs from his bank account on 17.10.2022 through RTGS. Thereafter, when respondent No.2 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, the investigating agency filed the reply, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 has although joined the investigation, however, he did not cooperate. The reason for non-cooperation is given that the amount in question is yet to be recovered. As such, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad fell into grave error by granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) and the findings recorded therein are contrary to the specific stand taken by the Investigating Officer. As such, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is liable to be set aside and the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 deserves to be cancelled.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case with his able assistance.

4. In the present case, respondent No.2 was granted ad interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.02.2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The Investigating Officer though admitted that respondent No.2 has joined the investigation, however, it is submitted that he has not cooperated in the investigation and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs received from the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 04.02.2025, granting ad interim anticipatory bail, was made absolute vide impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), by making the following observations: -

'5. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that dispute between the parties is of civil nature but has been given the colour of criminal nature. The offences alleged against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and the veracity of the allegations is required to be seen at the time of trial. The complainant is at liberty to initiate civil proceedings to recover the amount back. In this regard, this Court relies upon the case law titled Lalit Chaturvedi Vs. State of UP (supra) in which the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has held that:

5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any reasons necessitating cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2. Nowhere has it been indicated that the petitioner or the sanctity of the trial will be adversely affected, if he continues to enjoy the concession of bail. The scope of interference by the Courts qua cancellation of bail is rather limited and adjudication upon the alleged facts, does not fall within its purview.

6. The parameters for denying bail and cancelling the same are quite varied. Denial of bail is a matter of discretion and can be decided upon without inspecting the details of the matter. If the Court is of t