Anticipatory bail in serious economic offences is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly; it is denied when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation and when substantial evidence prima facie establishes the accused's active role and complicity in the crime.

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’) (corresponding to Section 438 of Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.254 dated 03.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (corresponding Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 351(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023), at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bhiwani.

The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Deepak Chaudhary stated that during 2015–16, he was engaged in property dealing in Gurugram and Delhi, where he came into contact with Suresh Parshad. Through him, he was introduced to several associates, including Haobijam Soraren Singh (petitioner herein), and they developed close relations. All the accused persons, including Haobijam Soraren Singh (petitioner herein), acted in conspiracy to cheat the complainant by luring him into investing money in a purported foreign currency business. They falsely represented that they possessed large amounts of foreign currency and would provide high returns upon exchange. Allegedly, the petitioner was part of this network and actively associated with the other accused in building trust and facilitating the fraudulent scheme. On 05.12.2020, Suresh Parshad and his associates visited the complainant’s house and induced him to arrange ₹50,00,000 on the pretext of urgent need, assuring repayment with profit after currency exchange. Believing them, the complainant and his father paid the amount. However, the foreign currency provided in return was found to be deficient and part of a deceptive transaction. Thereafter, under continuous inducement and false assurances by all accused, including Haobijam (petitioner herein), the complainant paid further amounts on different occasions. In total, a sum of ₹1,65,00,000 was obtained from him through fraud and misrepresentation. When the complainant demanded his money back, the accused persons avoided repayment on various pretexts and later took him to different places, including Imphal, under false promises of returning the money. However, they neither returned the amount nor honoured their assurances and eventually absconded. The complainant was also threatened with dire consequences. It is alleged that Haobijam Soraren Singh (petitioner herein), along with the co-accused, was part of the criminal conspiracy, participated in inducing the complainant, and facilitated the fraudulent transactions, thereby contributing to the misappropriation of ₹1,65,00,000.

Learned 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 counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that there is no specific allegation in respect of amount in question having been entrusted or received by the petitioner, and not even any specific transactions are stated to have been executed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that alleged electronic material, such as, Call Detail Records, screenshots, flight ticket details and a pen-drive containing certain records are already in possession of the Investigating Agency and nothing incriminating material is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that no specific act of inducement, execution of forged document or issuance of any threat has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that disclosure-statement of the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner and the same are not admissible in law. Learned counsel has argued that the alleged transactions pertain to the year 2022, whereas, the FIR in que