IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.10.2025 Ajay Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. I.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Yogesh Aneja, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.129 dated 09.07.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC and Section 61/2 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to defrauding the complainant namely Om Parkash Taneja, who alleged that in March 2023, the accused Ajay Kumar Sharma (petitioner herein). The accused-petitioner claimed that he had good connection with one Anil Kumar Jaiswal, who in turn had influence with high officials and ministers in departments like Income Tax and Sales Tax. It has been further alleged that the accused- petitioner had promised the complainant that he could arrange jobs for his two sons. The complainant after consulting his relative namely Hemant Kumar, who also agreed for the job, agreed for the same. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner arranged a call with Anil Kumar Jaiswal and both demanded Rs.60.00 lacs for securing jobs as Income Tax Inspector for the children. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.5.00 lacs on 10.05.2023, Rs.15.00 lacs on 14.12.2023 at Kali Ghata Restaurant, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and Rs.10.00 lacs on 24.10.2024. The accused assured that the jobs would be secured by December, 2024. On 23.02.2025, the complainant alongwith his sons and relatives met accused-petitioner but received no satisfactory response. Accordingly, the complainant requested for the refund if the jobs could not be secured. After 10 days, the accused-petitioner admitted that he could not provide the jobs and refused to return the money which necessitated the complainant to file a complaint. Initially the complaint led to inquiry and FIR as registered only against Anil Kumar Jasiwal. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was nominated in the present FIR vide DDR No.28 dated 22.08.2025 and offence under Section 61(2) of BNS was upgraded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that any money was ever paid or transferred to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, all the alleged payments were made in cash and not even a single rupee has been credited into the account of the petitioner which shows that the allegations are baseless and concocted. It has been further submitted that the complainant and petitioner are colleagues –– the complainant being a Manager in SBI and the petitioner a manager in SBI Life Insurance –– the petitioner merely shared the contact number of Anil Kumar Jaswal. Beyond this, the petitioner has no involvement or knowledge of any alleged money transactions between the complainant and Anil Kumar Jaiswal. It has been further iterated that the allegations are false, exaggerated and unsupported by evidence. It has been further submitted that the petitioner derived no benefit from any alleged transaction and his only role –– facilitating a telephonic introduction with Anil Kumar Jaiswal –– does not constitute any offence. The petitioner has been roped in subsequently as an afterthought during the course of investigation. It has been further submitted that the investigation conducted so far is neither fair nor impartial. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or t