Anticipatory bail in serious economic offences should be exercised sparingly with custodial interrogation being necessary for effective investigation and recovery of misappropriated assets.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.07 dated 12.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner has been alleged that he, in connivance with his accomplices, duped the complainant of an amount of ₹1,27,00,000/- by extending false assurances regarding the sale of land and by adopting fraudulent means to extract the said amount. It is further alleged that the petitioner received a total sum of ₹58,00,000/-, out of which ₹30,00,000/- was obtained directly from the complainant and ₹28,00,000/- was received from co-accused – Parkash Saini. Out of the said amount, the petitioner is alleged to have transferred ₹9,00,000/- into the bank account of his wife and withdrawn ₹19,00,000/- in cash, thereby indicating his active involvement in the misappropriation of the cheated funds.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned senior counsel has argued that the complainant has not leveled any allegation of cheating/ misappropriation against the petitioner in the original complaint, which forms basis of the FIR in question, whereas, the main allegation has been leveled against Parkash Saini. Learned senior counsel has further argued that the petitioner, through his wife had also contributed an amount of Rs.19 lakhs, as part payment (earnest money) being 25/100 share holder, therefore, instead of posing the petitioner as co-complainant, he has been placed in column of accused, without there being any allegations against him. Learned senior counsel has asserted that Parkash Saini had failed to execute the sale deed of the land in question, and even, it is transpired that the said land was not free from encumbrances and stay was operating, thus, it is the Parkash Saini, who cheated the complainant along with the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further asserted that at the most, the dispute is of civil nature having commercial transactions, but the same has been given a criminal colour.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Raising submissions in tandem with status report by way of an affidavit dated 20.02.2026, filed by the State, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner along with his co-accused