Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy that may be denied when there is an inordinate, unexplained delay in seeking relief, as such delay suggests an evasion of the investigative process. Additionally, custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation in cases involving serious economic fraud.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (old Section 438 of Cr. P.C.) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.80 dated 18.03.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 406, 365, 342 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal law was set into motion on the basis of complaint moved by the complainant – Pali Ram, proprietor of M/s Kissan Rice Mill, engaged in the trade of rice. As per the complainant, co-accused – Rajbir, who was also dealing in rice, approached him and offered to supply rice at concessional rates. It has been alleged that he was induced by said co-accused – Rajbir to purchase 3,000 quintals of rice at a concessional rate. On the pretext of such transaction, the complainant was called to Mohali, for making payments, where he was introduced to co-accused Dilbag Singh and the present petitioner. It has been further alleged that the substantial amounts were paid in cash on different occasions to the accused persons but neither the rice was supplied nor the amount was returned. Subsequently, instead of returning the amount, the accused persons allegedly attempted to divert the complainant into a land transaction, first at Yamuna Nagar and thereafter at Kotdwar, Uttarkhand, on the pretext that earlier payments would be adjusted against the sale consideration. In that process, the complainant alleges that further amounts were extracted from him under the guise of documentation and earnest money. The complainant further alleges that when he expressed his inability to pay an additional amount, he was wrongfully confined and threatened. In totality, the complainant alleges that he was cheated of an amount aggregating to approximately Rs.2.29 crores. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is an unexplained delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. It has been further argued that the entire story is highly improbable, as no prudent person would repeatedly part with huge amounts of cash after an initial alleged deception. It has been further argued that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations except the bald statement of the complainant. According to learned counsel, the complainant himself has cheated various persons and is stated to have absconded abroad. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties arises out of a purely commercial transaction of sale and purchase of rice and the same has been given a criminal colour in order to pressurize the petitioner. Learned counsel has emphasized that the name of the petitioner has been falsely roped into the instant case without any supporting evidence or proper investigation. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court & hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. Moreover, there is no likelihood of