The court denied anticipatory bail due to serious allegations of cheating, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in economic offences to protect societal interest and ensure effective investigation.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. These are two petitions having been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.229 dated 09.12.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(2), 61(2) of BNS at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal law was set into motion on the basis of complaint moved by the complainant Jatinder Kumar alleging that he was stated to be managing the firm M/s Jainam Foods, Ladwanjara Kalan, engaged in the business of basmati paddy. It has been further alleged that on 24.10.2025 at about 12:30 PM, three persons, namely Sahil Garg (petitioner herein), Tejpal Garg and Sandeep Kumar, came to the office of the complainant in a Safari vehicle bearing registration No. HRO5BQ-9490. They introduced themselves as traders and exporters of basmati rice operating under the names M/s Ganga Overseas and Ganga Foods at Karnal. They allegedly represented that they were engaged in export of basmati rice and offered to purchase rice at a rate higher than the prevailing market price, i.e., Rs. 6,681/- per quintal as against the market rate of Rs. 6,500/- per quintal. It has been further alleged that they induced the complainant to supply 100 metric tons of basmati rice and 30 metric tons of super mongra at agreed rates with the condition of 2% ease discount and 1% brokerage, with payment to be made within 10-12 days after loading. The samples were allegedly approved telephonically and through WhatsApp communication. Subsequently, between 26.10.2025 and 05.11.2025, several consignments of rice and broken rice were lifted through different trucks against various bills (i.e. Bill Nos. 204, 207, 208, 227, 230, etc.). Furthermore on 01.11.2025, an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was transferred as security by the accused to further induce the complainant to continue the supply. However, thereafter the accused allegedly failed to make payment of the remaining amount and when the complainant contacted the accused, they threatened the complainant with dire consequences and stopped responding to the calls. The complainant has alleged that the accused persons had dishonest intention from the very inception and have cheated him by inducing supply of rice at higher rates under false representation of being exporters. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and a respectable member of the Bar Association of this Court and has no concern with the day-to-day business affairs of M/s Ganga Overseas and Ganga Foods, which are stated to be proprietary concerns of his father. It has been further argued that the dispute between the parties arises out of a purely commercial transaction of sale and purchase of rice and the same has been given a criminal colour in order to pressurize the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the agreed payment period between the parties was of 37 days and the clause of payment within 10-12 days was only linked with a discount condition. Furthermore, the part payment of Rs. 8 lakhs was already made and further consignments were ordered in the ordinary course of business which shows absence of any dishonest intention from the inception. Learned counsel has emphasized that the bank account of the firm has already been frozen by the police prior to registration of the instant FIR, which prevented the petitioner from making further payments, and therefore no mens rea can be attributed to him. It has been further argued that the name of the petitioner has been falsely roped into the instant case without any supporting evidence or proper investig