IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.220 CRM-M-15709-2026 Decided on : 07.04.2026 Richhpal Dabla ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana ***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.180 dated 18.12.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Baund Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner cheated the unemployed youths by luring them with false promises of employment in the Army and collected money from them. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has not received any amount in cash or in his bank account, therefore, it cannot be said that he is involved in the said crime and the allegations levelled against him are concocted and baseless. He further contends that the petitioner has been implicated in the said FIR only to exert political pressure. It has been contended that there is an unexplained delay of 02 years in lodging the FIR which clearly shows that the version of the complainant is totally false. He contends that the transactions were made from the account of co-accused, therefore, interrogation of the petitioner is not required. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Therefore, it is urged that the instant petition be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter which is taken on record. She while referring to the same, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She contends that the petitioner has obtained money from the complainant and other victims with fraudulent means in lieu of arranging their recruitment in TA and Railways, and the connection of the petitioner is directly established from the fact that Rs.90,000/- has been received on-line by the petitioner from the victim and Rs.10,26,300/- has been transferred to other accounts.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the petition for anticipatory bail, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is running a racket to deceive various persons including the youth on the pretext of providing employment in the Army.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State Vs. Anil Sharma’, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under: "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, eff