JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.206 dated 03.09.2024 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused, under a pre-planned conspiracy, duped the complainants for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, on the pretext of securing jobs to them in Electricity Department. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern or involvement with the alleged fraud. He further argued that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary, nor has received any amount. He argued that petitioner has been roped in the present FIR unnecessarily as it was the co-accused Sunil Kumar who was acquainted with the complainants and the said co-accused has already died in the year 2023 and in order to recovery the money, the complainants have lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. He submitted that as per the prosecution, the alleged payments were given to the petitioner by the complainants in the year 2021 and the FIR in question was registered on 03.09.2024 i.e. after an unexplained delay of more than three years, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner as the contents of the FIR do not fulfill the ingredients of cheating in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 19.09.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused wrongly assured the complainants that that they would secure employment to both the complainants in Electricity Department and on that pretext, received an amount of Rs.15 lakhs and thus, has cheated and defrauded the complainants by making false promise of employment. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co-accused orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainants. He further submitted that earlier also the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2024 and further by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; and to effect recovery of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He along with co- accused is alleged to have cheated