IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 29.08.2025 Pronounced on : 16.09.2025 Anand Pal ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arpandeep Naruala, Advocate and Mr. Piyush Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate.

(through hybrid mode)

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.363 dated 20.06.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panipat vide order dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail, by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Succinctly, the background of the case emanating from record is that the FIR in this case came into being in view of a complaint moved by the complainant, namely Ritesh Kumar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. In the abovementioned complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has been defrauded by the petitioner and other co-accused, by making false claims and using forged documents, i.e. a fake letter head and thus, money of complainant has been grabbed.

3. According to the complainant, Lacchiram Verma was previously known to him, and that in August, 2022, Lacchiram Verma told him that Anand Pal (petitioner), and his co-accused, namely Vijay Rathi, Manoj Kumar and Narender Chaudhary were the license-holder for mining of sand in Yamuna river for the last many years. As per complainant, Lacchiram Verma also told that Vijay Rathi & others were not having sufficient financial resources to meet the expenses and therefore, they were looking for partner in the auction of mining lease. As per complainant, Lacchiram Verma offered partnership to the complainant, and therefore, the complainant spoke to his partners, namely Kuldeep & Ravinder and thereafter, conveyed to Lacchiram Verma that they were willing for mining work in Yamuna river as suggested by him.

4. It was further alleged by the complainant that at the time of filing of application for online bidding regarding mining sand in Yamuna River in Village Chhaproli, District Baghpat, an online application was submitted by the complainant and when Anand Pal (petitioner) and other accused came to know about the abovesaid application, they approached the complainant at Panipat and proposed that instead of going for separate bidding, they should work as partners. As per complainant, the bid was made on 23.12.2022 and on that day, accused Anand Pal (petitioner) showed a document to the complainant and his partners Kuldeep and Ravinder, with regard to participation of Manoj Kumar in that bid and informed the complainant and his partners, that Manoj Kumar was the proprietor of ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’.

5. According to complainant, it was also told that another company, i.e. ‘Apollo Company’, which was closed in the year 2018, had a valid environmental clearance and since both the firms belonged to Manoj Kumar, the environmental clearance of ‘Apollo Company’ would be transferred to ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’ and it would be done without any delay, which would expedite the resumption of mining work. As per complainant, they were told that they would secure auction in the next two bids at ‘Badarkha’ and ‘Gauripur’, District Baghpat, and that they would be working as a group with 15% share of the complainant in the mining business.

6. The complainant also alleged that finding the proposal lucrative, as it would