A second anticipatory bail petition is maintainable but requires the applicant to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. A private compromise between parties does not mitigate the gravity of serious offences involving forgery and cheating, nor does it constitute a sufficient ground for granting relief.

JUDGMENT

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS/Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.0022 dated 24.01.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC (added later on), at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

The petitioners had earlier applied for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on merits vide order dated on 06.04.2026.

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, has been preferred by the petitioner on 06.05.2026.

2. The prosecution case, as emanating from the FIR, is that in the month of July, 2022, the complainant was approached by the accused persons namely Sonu, Vikram @ Vikram Singh and Ankush Yadav @ Ankit (petitioners herein), who represented themselves as persons having influence and connections in government departments and assured the complainant that they could secure him a job in the Air Force/Army/Military Engineering Service. It has been alleged that the accused persons induced the complainant to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of arranging government employment and also showed him purported government identity cards in order to gain his confidence. Acting upon such assurances/representations, the complainant initially transferred an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- through electronic means at the instance of accused Sonu (petitioner No.1 herein). Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly sent a purported appointment letter to the complainant through electronic communication and directed him to report at Chandigarh for joining and training formalities. Believing the representations to be genuine, the complainant went to Chandigarh where he was made to stay for approximately three months under the pretext of training and departmental formalities during which he incurred additional expenses. It has been further alleged that during this period, the accused persons continued to demand additional amounts from the complainant and his family members on one pretext or the other. Certain amounts were allegedly transferred through bank accounts linked with accused Ankush Yadav (petitioner No.3) and other co-accused persons, while some payments were also made in cash. As per the complainant, the total amount alleged to have been extracted from him is approximately Rs.8,00,000/-. Furthermore, the accused Vikram @ Vikram Singh (petitioner No.2) actively assured the complainant regarding the genuineness of the recruitment process and also guaranteed return of money whereas accused Ankush Yadav (petitioner No.3) facilitated the routing of funds through his bank accounts. Accused Sonu (petitioner No.1) is alleged to be the person who initially established contact with the complainant and communicated the demands and documents pertaining to the alleged appointment process. It has been further alleged that despite repeated inquiries made by the complainant regarding issuance of joining letters and posting orders, the accused persons continued to evade him and ultimately stopped responding. Upon making inquiries from the concerned department, the complainant came to know that no such recruitment process existed and the appointment letters issued to him were forged and fabricated documents. Despite repeated demands, the accused persons (petitioners herein), allegedly failed to return the money which led to registration of the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the petitioners have falsely been implicated into the FIR in question as they are themselves the victims of the principal accused