JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

CRM-3699-2026

This application has been filed for placing on record the additional affidavit of the petitioner.

Application is allowed, as prayed for and the additional affidavit of the petitioner is ordered to be taken on record.

Main Case

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.145 dated 28.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Bahawala, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by fraudulently receiving the amount of sale proceeds in cash whereas the petitioner made entry of credit. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any such offence. He argued that in fact, the petitioner himself is a victim under the hands of complainant party. He argued that the petitioner was asking for increment in salary keeping in view the high inflation but it was not increased and ultimately, he left the job of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant and his brothers Anil Satija and Sushil Satija in connivance with each others made a concocted and false story in order to teach lesson to the petitioner. He further argued that firstly, the complainant misused three cheques of the petitioner and secondly, present FIR has been lodged against him. He further submitted that the accounts of the firm were being maintained by some other employee and the petitioner was only a salesman. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. 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.

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 Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide order dated 06.11.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he 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 was specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that as per the status report, the record of the complainant firm from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 reveals shortage of 956 items, valuing Rs.7,43,271/- and the petitioner could not produce any bill/documents regarding its sale. He further argued that according to the list of sundry debtors of the complainant firm, there is sale of Rs.27,66,745/- on credit basis but the complainant received only Rs.2,32,900/- in cash and remaining sale of Rs.25,33,845/- was found to be fake. Hence, the petitioner cheated the complainant for huge amount of money. He further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the amount involved, to unearth the modus operandi of accused and to identify other accused involved in the crime. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner is the main perpetrator of the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is specifically named in the FIR. As per the st