IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.02.2026 Sanjay Kumar @ Sunjay Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, APP, UT, Chandigarh.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-8051 of 2026 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-10195 of 2026

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.08 dated 19.01.2026 registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh.

2. As per prosecution version, petitioner had allured complainant-Harwinder for getting the Government job and had defrauded a sum of Rs.4 lakh from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation levelled by the complainant against the petitioner with regard to defrauding him for getting him Government job is totally baseless. He further submits that petitioner had taken a friendly loan from the complainant and as he failed to repay the same, complainant has got lodged the instant FIR by concocting a false story. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

4. Per contra, learned APP, UT, Chandigarh, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that petitioner has defrauded the complainant and extracted Rs.4 lakh from him on the false promise of getting him Government job. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in four other cases of similar nature, the details of which are as under: -

Sr. FIR No./date Under Section(s) Police Station No.

1. 85/02.11.2020 420 IPC Hajipur, Hoshiarpur

2. 107/14.11.2020 420 & 120-B IPC Hajipur, Hoshiarpur

3. 124/13.11.2022 420, 406 IPC Phase-11, Mohali

4. 35/20.04.2024 406, 420 IPC Phase-11, Mohali However, in para 19 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he is not involved in any other case, therefore, there is an active concealment on the part of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Prima facie, petitioner, who met the complainant at PGIMER, Chandigarh, allured the complainant that he would arrange a Government job for him and extracted a sum of Rs.4 lakh from him. Moreover, petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in aforementioned four more cases of similar nature, however, in the petition he has mentioned that he is not involved in any other case. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha, 2024(1) RCR(Criminal) 683.

7. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her liberty.

8. In Bal Krishan Fauzdar v. State of Haryana 2018 (1) RCR Criminal 789, it is held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para No. 8 as under: -

“........It is well settled that custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented since a person, who is couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge which would be inculpatory for him. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would leave