CRM-M-36423-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CRM-M-36423-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 ANAR SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. V.P.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in FIR No.0116 dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 120-B, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding Sections 61(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding Section 316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. 2. The case of the prosecution is that that the complainant, Nitesh Kumar, lodged a complaint with the police alleging that in the year 2024, he, along with his brother was taking coaching and was residing at Dwarka, New Delhi. During that period, accused Vivek told him that he, along with his co-accused Anar Singh (petitioner herein), could arrange Government employment for them in the Indian ₹ Railways in consideration of an amount of 22,00,000/-. The accused assured the complainant that he would be appointed to the post of Commercial Clerk in the Railways. Believing the said representation, the complainant allegedly paid a sum RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36423-2026 2 ₹ of 10,80,000/- to the accused on different dates. It is further alleged that the ₹ accused prepared a receipt showing payment of 6,85,000/- in the name of the complainant, though the complainant never signed the said receipt or the stamp paper on which it was executed. It is also alleged that the accused obtained blank/cancelled cheques bearing Nos. 506762, 506761 and 675972 from the complainant, which they may misuse. According to the complainant, the petitioner along with co-accused dishonestly cheated him, misappropriated an amount of ₹10,80,000/- paid by him, and failed to refund the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of about one year and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further contends that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and has been given the colour of a criminal offence with an ulterior motive. It is further argued that the petitioner never induced the complainant to part with any amount by making any false representation or with any dishonest intention. According to the learned counsel, the transactions between the complainant and the petitioner were bona fide in nature, and the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is actively involved in the offence. 6. Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36423-2026 3 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that his custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. Moreover, the recovery of the allegedly cheated amount is yet to be effected from the petitioner. In such circumstances, no case for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 16.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh