IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:18.05.2026 Krishana Dixit ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. B.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

For the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, in a case arising out of the FIR No.262 dated 17.10.2025, under Sections 318(3), 351(2) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Police Station New Colony, District Gurugram.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Vikram', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he had given his vehicle make Fortuner to be a registered travel agent, namely ‘Krishna Dixit’ (petitioner herein), and the deal was settled for payment of Rs.1.50 lacs, as charges, to the complainant. According to complainant, subsequently the above-named travel agent neither returned the car to the complainant nor paid charges to him, and thus, the complainant was subjected to cheating. As per complainant ‘Krishna Dixit’

defaulted in payment of rent, failed to execute proper legal deeds, and continued avoiding the complainant's calls. When the complainant tracked the vehicle via GPS, he discovered that the cars were hypothecated by ‘Krishna Dixit’ (petitioner herein), ‘Harish Khatri’ and ‘Vikas Soni’ to third parties without authorization.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

5 Notice of motion.

6 Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only a victim of circumstance who has been falsely implicated on the basis of a so called agreement. According to learned counsel for the petitioner neither the vehicle of complainant has been recovered from the possession of petitioner nor he was involved in any kind of illegal activities or transactions, and that he has been implicated in the present case without any reasonable basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the co- accused, namely ‘Uttam Singh’, from whose possession the vehicle of the complainant was recovered has already been accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail, and that the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than the above named co-accused. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

9 The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to leaned State counsel the case of the petitioner stands on altogether different footing than the case of co-accused, as there was no previty of contract between the complainant and the co-accused ‘Uttam Singh’ who was found in possession of stolen vehicle allegedly supplied to him by the present petitioner. According to learned State counsel since the written agreement for release of vehicle was between the complainant and the petitioner, the petitioner is liable for the cheating, and that in the present case in order to ascertain the role and extent of involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime his custodial interrogation is necessary.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11 A perusal of record shows that in the present case the allegations against the petitioner are that he being lessee of the vehicle, was supposed to return the same to the complainant and if breach of contract or any fraud or cheating has taken place, it is attributable to the p