In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Date of Decision:- 23.02.2026 Dharampal Singh @ Bagga … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.232 dated 12.12.2023, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s son was employed at Dubai. However, a dispute aroswe between complainant’s son and the employer, and as a result, the employer retained the passport of complainant’s son and consequently, he was unable to return to India. Complainant’s son happened to meet the present petitioner, who was residing at Dubai at that time. Petitioner professed to complainant’s son that he could reach out to petitioner’s ex-employer, and get his passport released, and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for the same. In lieu of the same, Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred to the account of one Harsimran on asking of the petitioner, and Rs.50,000/-

were handed over in cash. Despite payment of money, petitioner did not retrieve the complainant’s son’s passport, nor returned the money. Hence, the present FIR was lodged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR, and that no amount has been credited to the petitioner’s account by the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused, Kulvir Singh, has already been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide order dated 17.02.2025. Thus, learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as he is ready and willing to join the investigation.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent–State, and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the main accused in the present case, having allegedly cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received in the account of one Harsimran, whose statement has been recorded to the specific effect that the said amount was deposited by the complainant at the instance of the petitioner and was subsequently transferred to the petitioner’s account. Thus, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition, submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the true facts of the case and to effect recovery of the cheated amount.

6. Heard.

7. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly in view of the fact that the petitoner is the main accused in this case as he has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, and further considering that custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the cheated amount, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.

10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case.

( SU