104+215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-27650-2025 in/and CRM-M-20560-2025 Date of decision: 22.07.2025 Braham Dutt ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) CRM-27650-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to place on record Annexures A-1 to A-6. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-6 are taken on record. CRM-M-20560-2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.131 dated 03.04.2025 under Sections 406/420 of IPC registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal (Annexure P-1). Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-27650-2025 in/and CRM-M-20560-2025 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner has received an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- for the renovation of his house from the real brother of the complainant who is also a Teacher in a Government School. The petitioner being a Principal of another Government School was acquainted with the brother of the complainant and as such, the amount of Rs.14,40,000/- was extended to him as a loan and out of the same Rs.11,93,500/- has already been repaid. The veracity of the allegations made by brother of the complainant, namely, Balwinder, was thoroughly investigated and the inquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is available on record as Annexure P-11 which indicates that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, as such, the false implication of the petitioner is duly established. Per contra, the learned State counsel has filed status report on behalf of the respondent-State in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not received the amount as claimed by him for the renovation of his house. During investigation, it has been established that petitioner has opened a bank account in a firm, namely, B.D. Enterprises and the amount in question has been credited to the account of firm. Further, the petitioner has sent an e-mail to the complainant and also congratulated him for the processing of his visa by the Australian authority. As such, the allegations levelled by the complainant have been duly established. Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-27650-2025 in/and CRM-M-20560-2025 -3- Further, the petitioner was earlier involved in two cases with similar allegations. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complicity of the petitioner is duly established. On the one hand, the petitioner is claiming to be working as a Principal of a Government School, however, his actions are not only contrary to the service rules but he is also engaged in other activities. He refers to Annexure A-6 i.e. the registration certificate which clearly shows that in spite of being in Government service, he is running a firm in the name and style of B.D. Enterprises and he is the sole proprietor and authorized signatory of the firm. Further, the bank opening form of the firm is also available on record which clearly shows that the petitioner has got the account of the firm opened. The petitioner is engaged in the immigration activities also which is evident from his involvement in two more cases with similar allegations. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Keeping in view the material collected by the Investigation Agency during the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to take the investigation to its logical conclusion and to ascertain the modus operandi of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 22.07.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document