The court determined that anticipatory bail was not warranted due to the absence of an FIR and directed the police to conduct an inquiry per established guidelines.

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 in Crime No. Not Known of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner received huge sums of money from the defacto complainant on the promise of securing a job abroad.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that so far no FIR has been registered and only summons have been issued to the petitioner.

Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition seeking anticipatory bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the respondent police are directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation ”, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1578 and the case of “ Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others ” reported in(2026) INSC 115 .

7. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.