CRM-M/39725/2026 of SURESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 2026

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 110 dated 15.06.2026, registered under Sections 3(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 34, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a complaint dated 20.05.2026 submitted by complainant Nirmala, wife of Ramesh, resident of Village Bawwa, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, was forwarded to Police Station Kosli through the office of the Superintendent of Police, Rewari. It was alleged therein that the present petitioner, Suresh Kumar, along with

-:2:- his son Gitesh, induced the complainant to part with a sum of 5,00,000/- ₹ on the representation that they would secure a Government job (A.O.C.) for her son, Ravi. Thereafter, the complainant was repeatedly assured that although her son's name did not figure in the first selection list, he would be accommodated in the subsequent list. However, neither was any Government employment secured nor was the amount refunded. It was further alleged that the accused thereafter induced the complainant by assuring employment in the Delhi Police and, when the complainant demanded refund of her money, they allegedly threatened and misbehaved with her. The complainant further asserted that she belongs to the BPL category and had arranged the amount by borrowing money on interest, and that she possesses audio recordings in support of her allegations. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. It has further been stated that both the petitioner and co-accused Gitesh have not joined the investigation despite service of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman, a law-abiding citizen and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner had no direct role in the alleged transaction. According to learned counsel, the petitioner's son had come into contact with one Abhay, who represented that he could facilitate recruitment in Government service upon payment of money. Acting under a bona fide belief, the petitioner's son merely introduced the complainant to the said Abhay by sharing his contact details, whereafter both remained in direct communication with each other.

-:3:- It is further submitted that the petitioner's son transferred 3,00,000/- on ₹ 04.03.2025 and 2,00,000/- on 05.03.2025 ₹ to the account of Abhay. Thereafter, Abhay allegedly switched off his mobile phone and became untraceable, whereupon a cyber complaint dated 06.03.2025 was lodged by the petitioner's son alleging fraud. Learned counsel further submitted that, owing to the fraudulent conduct of Abhay, the amount could not be refunded to the complainant in time, although a sum of 1,00,000/- ₹ has already been repaid. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence and that his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor necessary.

4. Notice of motion.

4.1. At this stage, Mr. Karan Veer Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. He has vehemently opposed the present petition, contending that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this Court finds that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grave in nature. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and his son were operating a racket by collecting money from persons on the false promise of securing Government employment, thereby undermining the

-:4:- sanctity and fairness of the public recruitment process. Significantly, the receipt of money from the complainant has not been disputed. The defence sought to be raised by attributing the fraud to one Abhay is a matter requiring thorough investigation. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears necessary to ascertain the complete modus operandi, identify other persons involved, trace the flow of funds, and unearth the larger conspiracy, if any. Such investigation is essential to expose the entire network and preserve the integrity of public recruitment processes.

6.1. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during the course of trial, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 21.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No