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.284 dated 27.08.2025 registered under Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Chand Hut, District Palwal.

2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with other co-accused had cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs by getting executed agreement to sell of the land by impersonating the original owner Jaswinder with his brother-in-law Jaswinder. 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 no concern or involvement with the alleged fraud. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place in June 2024 but the FIR in question was registered on August 2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of more than 01 year and 02 months, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that the petitioner is a property dealer and he only introduced the complainant with the other co-accused and there are no allegations against him that he received any money in this regard except the brokarage. He further argued that the dispute in the present case is of civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour by registering false FIR only to harass the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents and nothing is to be recovered from him. 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 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, Palwal, vide order dated 09.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, 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 a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and out of the said amount, the petitioner has received Rs.12.60 lakhs in his own account. 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; to identify other possible victims of similar fraudulent transactions, and to effect recovery of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. 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 Rs.15,00,000/- and has received Rs.12.60 lakhs directly into his own account. As per the reply filed by the State, the petitioner in collusion with co-accused had deceived the complainant by impersonating the original owner and played an active role in the crime. The events in entirety indicate towards the existence of a bigger syndicate indulging in dubious activities as a result of which, innocent victims end up being preyed upon by such illusory tactics. While considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre- arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fai