IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

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.456 dated 07.09.2025 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with other co-accused, under a pre-planned conspiracy, duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs, on the pretext of securing an HCS job for his son-Jaiveer. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern or involvement with the alleged fraud. He argued that the alleged payment of Rs.45 lakhs was made in cash on 18.11.2023 and the FIR in question was registered on 07.09.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 01 year and 10 months, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that the petitioner only introduced the complainant with the main accused- Purshotam Soni and there is no allegation against him that he received any money in this regard. He further submits that, as per the prosecution, the entire transaction of Rs.45 lakhs is alleged to have taken place at the house of co-accused Purshotam Soni at Zirakpur and not at the shop of the petitioner at Sirsa. He further argued that the dispute in the present case is of civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour by registering false FIR only to harass the petitioner because he is the brother-in-law of co-accused Purshotram Soni. He further argued that in his affidavit (Annexure P-2), Purshotam Soni has categorically admitted by co-accused Purshotam Soni that the present petitioner has no role to play in the alleged money transaction, giving clean chit to the petitioner from the said crime. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated

06.11.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, has 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. She argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and has cheated and defrauded the complainant for Rs.45 lakhs on the pretext of securing an HCS job for his son. She further argued that the petitioner has played an active role in the fraud as the meeting with complainant took place at the cafe of petitioner and he has facilitated the entire fraud. She has further submitted that during investigation, notices were also issued to the petitioner by the police and the same were not responded by him. She 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; to identify other possible victims of similar fraudulent transactions, and to effect recovery of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory b