CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Jagdeep ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Joon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.487 dated 01.09.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Gurdeep Kumar alleging therein that accused Vishnu Chauhan, Karambir Yadav, Ravinder Havaldar and their associates induced him with the promise of procuring a Government job in the PWD Department, Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar and the Post Office MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) -2- through their political influence and demanded huge sums of money for the said purpose. As per the allegations, during the period from January, 2021 onwards, Karambir Yadav represented that accused Vishnu Chauhan was capable of arranging Government employment through backdoor entry. Believing such representations, the complainant paid different amounts from time to time to the accused persons, both in cash as well as through banking channels. It is alleged that forged appointment letters and identity cards were supplied to the complainant and, despite repeated assurances, no Government job was ever secured. Although a part of the amount was allegedly returned, the complainant claimed that a total amount of approximately Rs.20,79,000/- had been dishonestly obtained from him by the accused persons. During investigation, the investigating agency allegedly traced various financial transactions pertaining to the cheated amount. The petitioner Jagdeep came to be arrayed as an accused on the allegation that two transactions of Rs.50,000/- each, dated 27.08.2021, were transferred by the complainant into the petitioner's Axis Bank account at the instance of the principal accused Vishnu Chauhan. On the basis of the said transactions and the material collected during investigation, the petitioner was nominated in the present FIR. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order dated 09.04.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no role in commission of subject offences. The petitioner neither induced the complainant nor made any promise of procuring a Government job and that his implication rests solely on MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) -3- two bank transactions of Rs.50,000/- each, which in fact was the repayment of loan advanced to co-accused Vishnu by the sister of the petitioner, namely Nidhi. An affidavit has been sworn by said Nidhi to this effect. The petitioner has been nominated in this case only in April, 2026, despite the FIR having been registered in the year 2023. It is further argued that the petitioner stands on a better footing than the co-accused, as co-accused Jyoti has already been granted anticipatory bail, while other co-accused, namely Vishnu, Akash Dhiman, Ravinder Havaldar, Rahul Singh, Deepak and Karambir, have been granted the concession of regular bail. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. His detention in this case is not going to serve any useful purpose. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations disclose a well-organized conspiracy whereby the complainant was induced to part with substantial amounts on the false promise of securing Government employment. It is argued that the investigation has revealed a money trail involving the petitioner and that two amounts of Rs.50,000/- each were credited into the petitioner's bank account from the complainant during the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner is involved in a similar case. His custodial interrogation is required to unearth the complete conspiracy, identify the beneficiaries of the cheated amount and ascertain the role played by each accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The allegations against the petitioner are that two transactions of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) -4- Rs.50,000/- each were credited into his bank account by the complainant at the instance of the principal accused Vishnu Chauhan. Except the aforesaid transactions, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he had induced the complainant, held out any promise of securing a Government job or actively participated in the preparation of forged appointment letters or other documents. The petitioner's implication appears to be founded primarily upon the aforesaid monetary transactions, for which he has put forth an explanation that the amount represented repayment of money earlier advanced to co-accused Vishnu Chauhan through his sister, Nidhi, who has also sworn an affidavit in support thereof. Needless to observe, the correctness or otherwise of the said explanation is a matter of trial and this Court is not required to record any conclusive finding thereupon at this stage. 7. It is also not in dispute that although the FIR came to be registered on 01.09.2023, the petitioner was nominated as an accused only in April, 2026. Furthermore, co-accused Jyoti has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, whereas the principal accused Vishnu Chauhan and the remaining co-accused have been granted regular bail. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to claim parity, particularly when no material has been pointed out to demonstrate that his role is graver than that attributed to the aforesaid co- accused. The principal opposition raised by the learned State counsel is that the petitioner is involved in another case of similar nature and that his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy. However, except making a general assertion, the State has not been able to demonstrate as to what specific purpose would be served by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, particularly when the prosecution case against him is primarily MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26611-2026 (O&M) -5- based upon documentary evidence in the shape of banking transactions, which already stands collected during investigation. Mere pendency of another criminal case cannot be considered to be a sole ground to deny concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, the fact that he came to be nominated after considerable delay, the parity available with the co-accused and there being no convincing justification placed on record necessitating his custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned. The petitioner shall join the investigation within a period of ten days from today or as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by all the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 8. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 15.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.16 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document