IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Gupta ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 24.03.2026 Date of Uploading : 24.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference).

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate and Ms. Chetan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.330 dated 22.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR is that the petitioner, by falsely representing himself as capable of arranging overseas work visas, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount. It has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has gained the trust of the complainant and his family by staying in their PG and claiming that he could arrange work visas for the foreign countries. Believing his words, the ₹

complainant had paid a total amount of about 10.85 lakh to send his son abroad. It has been further alleged that after receiving the money, the petitioner had failed to arrange the promised visa. Thereafter, the petitioner first gave excuses and later provided a visa document which turned out to be fake when verified. When the complainant demanded the money back, the petitioner admitted his mistake and returned only a small portion of the amount and promised to repay the rest. However, he neither returned the ₹

remaining 10.00 lacs nor arranged any genuine visa. Instead, he issued cheques for repayment but upon presentation those cheques were dishonoured. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the same has been lodged with mala fide intention. Learned counsel has further iterated that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature arising out of a monetary transaction, which has been unnecessarily given a criminal colour. It has been further contended that the petitioner has no dishonest intention from the beginning and has made genuine efforts to arrange the visa. Furthermore, the part payment has already been made and the petitioner has undertaken to settle the remaining amount, which shows his bona fides. Learned counsel has further emphasized that petitioner is ready and willing to make earnest efforts to repay the outstanding amount to the complainant. It has been contended that on account of certain financial constraints, the petitioner could not adhere to the earlier undertaking and prays that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to make rest of the payment towards the alleged liability and to demonstrate his bona fides. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that as far as specific role of the petitioner is concerned, he has committed fraud with the ₹

complainant and grabbed an amount of 10,85,000/- from the complainant under the pretext of providing work visa to the son of the complainant.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has argued that the petitioner has played fraud not only with the respondent No.2/complainant but also with this Court. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner was afforded the concession of interim protection by this Court solely on the ground that he has expressed his willingness to settle the dispute with the complainant and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for exploring the possibility of an amicable resolution. However, despite availing such indulgence, the petitioner has failed to adhere