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.343 dated 19.12.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Central Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused cheated the complainant for an amount of Rs.28 lakhs, on the pretext of selling land on the basis of forged agreement to sell. 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 argued that the present FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of one year and five months, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that only general and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. He further argued that name of the present petitioner has been dragged in the FIR solely on the ground that he was acting as a witness to the alleged agreement to sell. He argued that neither the petitioner was any beneficiary to the alleged agreement to sell, nor has forged any document in this regard. He further submits that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already with investigation agency. Hence, there is no apprehension that petitioner can tamper with the evidence. 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, Faridabad, vide order dated 02.01.2026.

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, 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 is specifically named in the FIR and has cheated and defrauded the complainant for an amount of Rs.28 lakhs on the pretext of selling land on the basis of forged agreement to sell. He further argued that the petitioner has actively participated in the offence as it was the petitioner who represented before the complainant that land could be sold and sale deed would be executed directly from the actual owners. He further submits that petitioner had knowledge that the MOU was forged, yet he became witness to it. He further submits 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 put in appearance and filed his Vakalatnama, 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 is alleged to have cheated and defrauded the complainant for a huge amount of money on the pretext of selling the land on the basis of forged agreement to sell. He falsely represented to the complainant and was also present at the time of execution of the agreement to sell