Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.84 dated 21.04.2026, registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS, 2023, at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Santosh Kumar. It was alleged that he and Sushil Kumar were employed in Railway Department from the last 12 years. The complainant knew Abhishek Malhotra @ Laddi (petitioner) as his father Deepak Kumar had family relations with him. Abhishek Malhotra @ Laddi allured the complainant and Sushil Kumar on the pretext of getting them promotion as he has very good relations with Railway Minister. On the assurance given by Abhishek Malhotra @ Laddi, the complainant and Satish Kumar gave Rs.9 lacs to him and one Harjit Singh by way of digital transfer as well as in cash, in order to get their work done. However, neither the promotion were arranged nor their money was returned to them, and threatened the complainant. Hence, the complainant and Satish Kumar found themselves cheated by Abhishek Malhotra @ Laddi and request was made to take legal action. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 15.05.2026. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that it is not believable that the complainant and Satish Kumar, both being employed in the Railway Department, could have been deceived or defrauded by the petitioner. He submits that even otherwise, the dispute is totally civil in nature, which has been given criminal colour. He submits that the main accused is Sanjay, who had taken the alleged amount from the complainant and Satish Kumar, who had already given an affidavit alongwith a cheque of Rs.9 lacs in favour of the complainant and Satish Kumar. He, thus, submits that no direct role whatsoever is attributed to the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that even a single transaction, online transfer, cheque payment or financial entry in the bank account of the petitioner, rather the alleged payment was made in the account of Harjit Singh. He, thus, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, and hence, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the there are serious allegations of cheating against the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner defrauded the complainant and Satish Kumar by taking amount of Rs.9 lacs from them on the pretext of getting them promoted in the Railway Department. Rather, the petitioner projected himself to be known of the Railway Minister, which constitutes a serious matter requiring thorough investigation. He, thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and hence, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the allegations levelled in the FIR prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in inducing the complainant and Satish Kumar to part with a substantial amount on the pretext of securing prom