IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 12.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.0219 dated 17.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-

arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on

06.11.2025 by a detailed order.

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on

09.02.2026.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that a written complaint was lodged by complainant namely Gulshan Kumar alleging that the petitioner namely Naresh Kumar, alongwith other co-accused i.e. Shiva Kumar and Ganesh had played fraud and misappropriated the money. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid accused persons ₹

had cheated him for a sum of 4,48,200/- by inducing him on the false pretext of arranging a Government job for one of his relatives but later on failed to fulfill their promise. Despite repeated requests, neither the promised job was arranged nor the amount was refunded to the complainant. It has been further alleged that when the complainant had demanded his money back, the accused refused and issued threats to him. In this manner, the complainant was allegedly duped. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR are vague, baseless and devoid of any substantive material. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged transaction and has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon him. Learned counsel has further asserted that the petitioner has made no promise of securing a government job ever and the entire narrative projected by the complainant is not only false but fabricated. According to learned counsel, in the absence of any substantive or cogent material, the prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted, as no dishonest intention can be attributed to the petitioner at the inception of the alleged transaction and at best, the dispute is stated to be civil in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as he is ready to join investigation and has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order on 06.11.2025 and neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Learned Stat