MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 0143 dated 18.10.2025, registered under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860 (now Section 318 of the BNS, 2023) at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Satya Devi, who along with her husband was running a firm namely M/s Satya Agro Traders (Potato Farm) at village Raju Majra, District SBS Nagar. It is alleged that the firm used to purchase potatoes from farmers of Punjab on credit basis and thereafter sell the same in Gujarat and clear the payments to the farmers upon receiving the sale proceeds. It is further alleged that several persons, including the present petitioners, purchased potatoes from the complainant’s firm but failed to make payment of huge outstanding amounts running into several lakhs of rupees. Despite repeated requests and demands, the accused persons not only failed to clear the dues but also allegedly threatened the complainant side with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, an inquiry was conducted, during which allegations of cheating and fraud were found to be substantiated, leading to the registration of the present FIR against the accused persons.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case has been falsely projected as a criminal offence whereas, in fact, it arises out of a purely civil/commercial dispute pertaining to recovery of money. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, disclose that the complainant and her husband were engaged in business dealings with various persons including the petitioners, wherein payments were initially being made and it is only subsequently that certain payments are alleged to have been withheld. Thus, there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction so as to attract the offence of cheating. Learned counsel has further argued that no transaction whatsoever has taken place between the petitioners and the complainant. It is submitted that even as per the FIR, a sum of Rs.44,65,000/- has been alleged against petitioner No.1, however, as per the inquiry conducted by the investigating agency and the bills placed on record, only an amount of Rs.3,84,500/- is shown to be payable. It is further contended that no amount has been alleged to be due against petitioner No.2 and no supporting bills have been produced qua him. It is further argued that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature relating to recovery of alleged dues and has been given a criminal colour only to exert pressure upon the petitioners. It is submitted that even as per the complainant’s own version, payments were initially being made, which negates the essential ingredient of dishonest intention from the very beginning. Learned counsel has also contended that the investigating agency has acted in a mechanical manner by arraying a large number of persons and treating the matter as a recovery proceeding, which amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Court but their bail application was wrongly dismissed without properly appreciating the civil nature of the dispute and the discrepancies in the alleged amounts. It is argued that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens, are ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, and that custodial interrogation is not required in the present case. Therefore, it is prayed that the concession of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. He, with the assistance of Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, who appears for the