REEMA SAINI 2026.07.20 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-39115 of 2026(O&M) Thereafter, Rishu Garg demanded Rs.6000/- and on 23.10.2025, they got sanctioned loan of Rs. 15 lacs in the account of complainant. 6) It is further mentioned in the statement of complainant that he asked Rishu Garg that loan was of Rs.25/30 lacs and then Rishu Garg stated that he has talked to Manager, who will get the loan of Rs.30 lacs passed but they have to pay Rs.4 lacs to Manager as subsidy/ deductions. Thereafter, complainant along with Rishu Garg alongwith Amritpal Singh went to bank of complainant, where Rishu Garg by filling the cheque of complainant got withdrawn Rs.4 lacs. Rishu Garg also stated complainant that he will give him security cheque regarding amount of Rs.4 lacs but thereafter, kept putting off the matter regarding issuance of security cheque and assured complainant regarding further loan and and demanded Rs.20,000/-. Rishi Garg also got transferred Rs.20.000/- from the mobile phone of complainant, which was given by complainant to Rishu Garg. who again demanded Rs.15,000/-, which was paid in his account by google pay. Accused assured the complainant that his loan amount shall be released soon but it was not done and thus Rishu Garg and his father in connivance with each other cheated complainant of Rs.4,96,000/- i.e. Rs.4,61,000/- cash and Rs.35,000/- by google pay. On recording this statement of complainant, police machinery swung into action and instant case FIR was registered against the accused.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. Infact, petitioner was customer of the complainant and had been purchasing milk from him. There was a running account between the petitioner and the complainant. Petitioner was also a small time financier in the village and used to lend money to the complainant on various occasions. In this context, learned counsel referred to Annexure P-2 google pay transactions. He further submits that even after registration of the FIR, a sum of Rs.16,000/- had been paid to the complainant on 12.08.2025 Entire story regarding the petitioner obtaining a sum of Rs.35,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- for payment to the Manager for sanctioning of loan was false, concocted and was improbable. No recovery REEMA SAINI 2026.07.20 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-39115 of 2026(O&M) was to be effected from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation was not required. Petitioner was ready to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000-, which was received by him through goggle pay. He thus, deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that allegations against the petitioner were specific, serious and he dishonestly induced the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- on the pretext of obtaining the loan/subsidy. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for effecting recoveries and also to unearth the conspiracy, involvement of bank officials if any and regarding other offences committed by the petitioner in similar manner. 6. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime. 7. Allegations against the petitioner are grave, serious and specific. His custodial interrogation is required for effecting recoveries relating to the alleged fraudulent transactions and to unravel the larger REEMA SAINI 2026.07.20 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-39115 of 2026(O&M) conspiracy, if any and also role of bank officers in the crime. There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, will not advance the course of justice and would amount to undue interference in the statutory investigational powers of the police, which is not permissible. 8. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.20 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh