IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 30, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 30, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

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. 99 dated 09.09.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (erstwhile Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC), at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga.

2. The gravamen of the instant FIR reflects that the petitioner, by misrepresenting the FIR-complainant that he had influence and connections to secure a govt. job in the Railway Department, induced her to pay a sum of ₹

approximately 98,000/-. The complainant has alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner arranged a purported appointment letter through electronic means, which upon verification was found to be forged and fabricated. The FIR- complainant has further stated that she has received a sum of Rs.30,000/- returned from the petitioner, but the remaining amount was not returned by the petitioner and the petitioner avoid to repay the same on one pretext or another. The complainant has, thus, alleged that the petitioner dishonestly took money from her by making false promises and used a forged document. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It is contended that the petitioner has never committed any offence of forgery. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated and that the amount in question was not obtained by cheating but was a loan taken for the medical treatment of his wife. It is further submitted that he has already returned part of the amount in question and is willing to repay the remaining sum. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that 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 (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner lured the complainant by falsely promising a government job and even fabricated a fake appointment letter and, thus, the offence thus involves forgery of official documents, which is a serious offence. It is further contended that earlier also the petitioner is involved in other similar cases and, hence appears to be a habitual offender. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

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 by the prosecution, the allegation