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.559 dated 15.10.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused impersonated as representatives of M/s M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., used documents and false e-mail communications and induced the complainant to deploy manpower and thus incurred financial loses to him amounting to Rs.44,11,241/-. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor has any concern with the alleged fraud. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Aditya Kumar Singh that too after a gap of more than one year from the registration of FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the petitioner was neither any beneficiary to the alleged fraud as no amount was deposited in his bank account, nor he demanded or induced the complainant or any other persons at any point of time. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner and therefore, no offence of cheating in any manner has been made out against the petitioner and mere bald and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in possession of the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted 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 his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 05.03.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, she has vehemently 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. She argued that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that the petitioner is the principal conspirator and the main person behind the execution of the fraudulent scheme. The petitioner had deliberately impersonated himself as ‘Aditya Singh’ projecting himself as an authorized representative/official associated with M3M company, Gurugram. It is in this assumed identity that he approached the complainant and induced him to enter into a purported manpower supply agreement. The petitioner was named in the FIR under the identity of ‘Aditya Singh’ which was in fact the fictitious/assumed name adopted by him for carrying out the fraud. The role attributed to him is central and active in nature. As per investigation, the petitioner, in furtherance of pre-planned criminal conspiracy with co-accused Pawan Kumar, co-accused Roop Kumar Singh, was instrumental in identifying and targeting the complainant, holding meetings, and falsely representing that manpower work would be allotted through M3M company. The petitioner was actively involved in creation and use of fake e-mail IDs in the name of M3M company,