A third anticipatory bail petition must show substantial change from earlier petitions; serious allegations of cheating and conspiracy necessitate denial of pre-arrest bail.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS ’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.203 dated 02.11.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur Punjab.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025 and 01.07.2025 respectively and no opinion on merits have been expressed therein.

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the third petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 29.10.2025.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to defrauding the complainants namely Gurvinder Singh son of Mulakh Raj, resident of Ward No.1, Basant Colonyu, Dhuri and Amarjit Singh son of Leela Singh, resident of village Barwal, Tehsil Dhur, District Sangrur, who alleged that the Gurpreet Singh (petitioner herein) alongwith co-accused Lakhvir Singh resident of village Gumti, District Sangrur cheated them of Rs.4,50,000/- by promising them government jobs. On 05.09.2021, at Kehla Park, the accused Lakhvir Singh and the petitioner approached the complainants, inquired about their work and education and assured them that they could secure government jobs in exchange for 10,00,000/- half payable in advance. Trusting their words as accused Lakhvir Singh is related to Amarjit Singh, the complainants made several payments (total amount of Rs.4,50,000/-) through bank transfers and cash between 08^th and 17^th September 2021. Out of this amount, Rs.1,40,000/- was transferred directly into the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the accused stopped answering calls and made excuses instead of arranging the promised jobs. The complainants further alleged that the accused failed to provide any job and they have been cheated and mentally distressed which necessitated them to file a complaint leading to registration of the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR are vague, baseless and devoid of any substantive material. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence except that the co-accused Davinder Singh Tiwana, who was primarily responsible for the fraudulent activity got the money transferred to the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a poor labourer with no criminal antecedents. The FIR was registered after an unexplained delay from the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has already settled the matter with the complainants and returned the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and a written compromise dated 29.08.2025 has also been entered into between the parties in this regard. Furthermore, the FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. According to learned counsel, in the absence of substantive and incomplete material, the entire prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of process. It has been further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as he is ready to join investigation and has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of afores