IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

205 (2 cases) CRM-M-49774-2025 &

CRM-M-24214-2025 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 VINOD KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

****

Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rahul Sidher, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both cases.

****

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

Both the abovementioned petitions are being decided by a common order since the same arise out of same complaint case.

2. The instant petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 in both cases namely Narender Singh Jangra and Nathu Ram by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide orders dated 29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively passed in Criminal Case bearing No.COMI-35 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 titled as ‘Ramphal and another Versus Nathu Ram etc.’ pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Tohana.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the private respondents No.2 in connivance with other accused persons namely Bhupendra son of Madan Lal and Ravinder son of Nathu Ram had committed fraud upon the complainants to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on the pretext of providing government jobs to them, however, they did not do so. The complainant moved a complaint before the police against four persons, but the police registered FIR No.130 dated 06.06.2023 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad against accused Ravinder only and declared the other accused persons as innocent. Aggrieved of the same, the complainants moved a criminal complaint bearing No.COMI-35 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 titled as ‘Ramphal and another Versus Nathu Ram etc.’ against all the accused persons, wherein the trial Court summoned all the accused persons including respondents No.2 herein. However later on, the matter was settled amicably, whereby the private respondents had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- in three installments, but no such payment was made.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents No.2 succeeded in getting anticipatory bail from the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide impugned orders dated 29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively. However, after getting the anticipatory bail from the Court, the respondents resiled from the terms and conditions of the compromise and denied to pay the agreed amount of Rs.38,00,000/-. He further submits that since the private respondents No.2 failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise, the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to them ought to be cancelled/withdrawn.

5. Learned State Counsel on the other hand, contends that it is a matter of private complaint between two parties and the State has no role to play at this stage.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 in both cases vehemently opposes the petitions on the ground that the petitioner/complainant has not brought on record any cogent and convincing material which could warrant the interference by this Court qua cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to them.

Hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. He prayed accordingly.

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

8. From a careful perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not made out or referred to any ground under the provisions of law, whereby he may be able to allege that any of the terms and conditions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been violated by the private respondents. Moreover, a careful perusal of impugned orders dated 29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively (Annexure P-4) clearly shows that the private respondents were not granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on the basis of any compromise allegedly arrived at be