IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner V/s The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.219 dated 17.07.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by Gulshan Kumar against the petitioner Naresh Kumar, alongwith Shiva Kumar and Ganesh, alleging fraud, misappropriation of money, and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid accused ₹

persons cheated him of a sum of 4,48,200/- by inducing him on the false pretext of arranging a Government job for one of his relatives, but thereafter failed to fulfill their promise. Despite repeated requests, neither was the promised job arranged nor was the amount returned. It is further alleged that when the complainant demanded the return of his money, the accused flatly refused and criminally intimidated him with threats to his life. Thus, the complainant was allegedly duped, and on the basis of these allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered and the investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the allegations in the FIR are false, concocted and mala fide. The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged transaction and has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon him. Learned counsel has further asserted that no promise of securing a government job was ever made by the petitioner and that the entire narrative projected by the complainant is fabricated. According to learned counsel, in the absence of any substantive or cogent material, the prosecution case is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further urged that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted, as no dishonest intention can be attributed to the petitioner at the inception of the alleged transaction, and at best, the dispute is civil in nature. Learned counsel additionally submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents, is ready to join and cooperate with the investigation and that there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence in the event he is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations are serious in nature and involve offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and intimidation. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner, in active connivance with co-accused persons induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on a false pretext of arranging government job thereby committing a premeditated financial fraud. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the evidence collected so far suggests dishonest intention at the inception thereby attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC and his custodial interrogation may be necessary to trace the money trail, identify other possible accused persons and collect documentary evidence. Furthermore, learned State counsel has submitted that in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR i