IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CRM-M-55454-2024 Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Naved @ Naved Alam .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana assisted by ASI Dharminder. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.204 dated 02.08.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh. The FIR, annexed as Annexure P-1, arises out of grave allegations concerning large scale cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation, reportedly affecting the academic and professional future of numerous aspiring students. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the proprietor of the entity in question—A One Nursing Academy and Counselling Centre—but is merely an employee discharging administrative duties. The ownership, it is argued, lies solely with one Dr. Mohammad Irshad. 3. It is further submitted that all fee collections, whether in VINAY 2025.07.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-55454-2024 cash or via electronic means, were duly deposited into the account of Dr. Mohammad Irshad, and in support of such claim, transaction records have been annexed to the petition as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner has not derived any financial benefit from these transactions. 4. Learned counsel has also further submitted that a previous FIR No.43 dated 19.02.2024, was registered on similar allegations, in which the petitioner has since been granted bail by the order dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-6). It has, therefore, been vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is being repeatedly and unfairly targeted on the basis of false and motivated complaints. 5. On being put to notice, learned State counsel has filed reply/status report by way of affidavit of DSP, Punhana dated 03.12.2024 and additional affidavit of DSP, Ferozepur Jhirka dated 24.02.2025, copies of which have been supplied to the counsel opposite. 6. Learned State counsel has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are not only serious in nature, but are supported by cogent material indicating a well-planned conspiracy to defraud innocent students. As per the learned State counsel, the petitioner, in active connivance with the co-accused, fraudulently promised admissions into recognised nursing courses, collected huge amounts from gullible students, and issued forged and fabricated admission letters from various colleges across different States, including Punjab, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh. VINAY 2025.07.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-55454-2024 7. Learned State counsel has further contended that approximately Rs.9,06,000/- was dishonestly collected from multiple students under the guise of securing legitimate admissions. While drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR, he submits that several students were deceived with forged provisional letters and false assurances. When confronted, the accused including the petitioner not only denied the legitimacy of the payments made by the students but also threatened them and their parents with dire consequences. It has also been brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner is involved in another FIR of similar nature, which has been registered at the instance of some other victims and complainant, and it clearly indicates a pattern of conduct rather than an isolated incident. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 9. The FIR in question narrates a deeply disturbing series of events involving nearly 18 students who were misled into enroling at a purportedly bogus institution—A One Nursing Academy and Counselling Centre—allegedly operated by the petitioner and his associates. The students, upon the promise of legitimate nursing education and certification, paid substantial sums ranging between Rs.55,000 to Rs.90,000 each. Forged admission letters purportedly issued by recognised institutions were distributed to lend credence to the deception. Furthermore, no legitimate examination was ever conducted, and upon enquiry, it was revealed that the admission documents were entirely fictitious. Furthermore, a perusal of the FIR VINAY 2025.07.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-55454-2024 contains allegations of threats to life when the students and their parents confronted the accused, including the petitioner. 10. The gravity of the offence is compounded by the number of victims, the calculated manner in which the plan was executed, and the direct impact on the educational futures of innocent young individuals. Prima facie, the allegations disclose a systematic and deliberate plan to defraud for financial gain, cloaked under the garb of educational services. 11. The plea of the petitioner that he was merely an employee handling administrative duties and that no amount was personally retained by him, cannot be delved into while deciding the instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, and the same can only be assessed upon a thorough and proper investigation. The nature of allegations, particularly involving the issuance of forged documents etc., cannot be glossed over at the pre-arrest stage. 12. In view of the serious and grave allegations levelled against the petitioner, who has been booked in another FIR involving identical allegations, does not deserve to be extended the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. The instant petition stands dismissed accordingly. 13. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 09.07.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.07.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment