CRM-M-32132-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 228 AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32132-2025 Date of decision: 05.08.2025 RAJ SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. **** H.S.GREWAL,J. (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of an- ticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 24 dated 11.01.2025 under Sec- tions 420,406, 120-B IPC and Section 24 Immigration Act registered at Police Station Assandh District Karnal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused embezzled Rs. 4.5 lakhs from the complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad. It is alleged that on the instructions of agent Joga Singh, the complainant transferred Rs. 50,000/- in the account of the petitioner in lieu of booking tickets for Germany. The petitioner is brother-in-law of the main ac- cused Joga Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the main accused is Joga Singh. The petitioner had no knowledge about the amount transferred in his account and he never got into an agreement/deal with the complainant. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. Renu Rawat 2025.08.07 16.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32132-2025 2 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the prayer for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are four more cases of similar nature pending against him. 6. Mr. Aayush, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in the Court today and the same is taken on record. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. 8. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, perusal of the FIR and the investigation conducted so far clearly reveals that the petitioner along with the main accused cheated the complainant on the pretext of sending abroad. The petitioner is a habitual offender with four other cases of similar nature registered against him so the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 9. It is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the case on the basis of material available before it. 05.08.2025 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.08.07 16.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document