IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Arvind Narwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Digvijay Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

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.129 dated 17.09.2025 registered under Sections 120-B, 370, 384, 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Bond Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused, cheated the complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad, abducted him and extorted a huge sum to release him.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged fraud. He further submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged fraud. He further contends that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the present FIR, as the alleged transactions started to take place in April 2024 and the complainant returned to India on 31.08.2025. Whereas, the FIR came to be registered on 17.09.2025. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents. He further submits that the co-accused Sandeep Kumar has already been granted the concession of bail by the co-ordinate of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2026. 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 Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, vide order dated 24.02.2026. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has vehemently 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 he is the main accused. He further argued that the petitioner is not on parity with co-accused Sandeep, as petitioner is direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud and extortion and has received ₹5.15 Lakhs directly into his bank account. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co-accused orchestrated a well planned conspiracy. 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; as well as to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud and also to identify victims of similar fraud committed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and pertain to a well-planned conspiracy involving fraud and extortion. As per the status report, the petitioner is not only specifically named in the FIR but is also alleged to be the main beneficiary, having received a substantial amount directly in his bank account. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of multiple persons acting in concert and the role of the present petitioner is yet to be fully unearthed. The investigation qua the petitioner is