SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Sec. 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.231 dtd. 27/5/2025 registered under Ss. 120-B, 406, 420 of IPC and Sec. 24 of the Emigration Act, at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with co-accused cheated the complainant-Ashok Kumar for a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs on the pretext of sending his son abroad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor has any concern with the said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He argued that the petitioner was neither the beneficiary of the said transactions nor he has received any amount in this regard. He further argued that the dispute was between co-accused Neeraj and the complainant and the petitioner has nothing to do with the incident. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.