Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy not granted in serious offences like organized cheating, especially when custodial interrogation is required to trace the money trail, recover forged documents, and identify the full extent of the conspiracy.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

By this common order, the aforesaid three petitions filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely Vikram @ Vikram Singh, Ankush Yadav @ Ankit and Sonu, in case bearing FIR No.0022 dated 24.01.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh are being disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR.

The prosecution case, as emanating from the FIR and the material collected during investigation, is that the complainant was approached in the month of July, 2022 by the accused persons, namely Sonu, Vikram @ Vikram Singh and Ankush Yadav @ Ankit (petitioners herein), who induced him on the pretext of securing a job in the Air Force/Army. It has been alleged that the accused persons represented themselves as having links in government departments and assured the complainant of arranging employment in lieu of monetary consideration. Acting upon such inducement, the complainant initially transferred an amount of ₹50,000/- through electronic means at the instance of accused Sonu. It has been further alleged that thereafter, a purported appointment letter was sent to the complainant through electronic communication, pursuant to which he was called to Chandigarh and made to stay there for about three months under the pretext of training, during which he incurred additional expenses. During this period, the accused persons (petitioners herein) allegedly continued to demand further amount and the complainant, along with his father, had paid additional amounts through bank transfers as well as cash transactions through accounts linked with co-accused Ankush Yadav and others. It has been further alleged that a total amount of approximately ₹8.00 lacs, were extracted from the complainant on the false assurances. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioner Vikram (in CRM-M-15848-2026) had actively participated in the transaction by assuring the complainant regarding the genuineness of the process and even guaranteeing return of money while petitioner Ankush (in CRM-M-15959-2026) facilitated the routing of funds through his bank accounts. As regards petitioner Sonu (in CRM-M-16289-2026), the complainant has alleged that he is the primary person who initiated contact and communicated demands and documents. Despite repeated inquiries by the complainant regarding the joining letter, the accused persons (petitioners herein) allegedly avoided him and did not respond. Later on, the appointment letter issued to the complainant was found to be forged and fabricated and he had come to know that no such recruitment process existed. Upon making inquiries from the concerned department, the complainant came to know that he had been cheated. Despite repeated demands, the accused persons (petitioners herein) allegedly failed to return the money. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and during investigation, the involvement of the petitioners has surfaced.

Learned counsel for the petitioner –Vikram @ Vikram Singh has iterated that the allegations in the FIR are false, concocted and mala fide as he is presently serving in the Border Security Force. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged offence and has been roped in only on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. According to learned counsel, in fact, the petitioner and his son are themselves victims of the alleged fraud as they has also paid substantial amount to the main accused persons namely Ashu and Pardeep who have assured them of securing government employment. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has merely facilitated certain transactions on behalf of the complainant without any dishonest intention and no wrongful gain has been accrued to him. It has been