JUDGMENT : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. :- By way of present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.14 dated 12.02.2024 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, Punjab wherein they have been implicated with the allegations of having induced and deceived the complainant of huge amount against investment towards purchase of properties in Patiala and thereafter usurping/misappropriating the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant parted with a sum of Rs.1.10 crores vide different transactions through his relatives /friends having transferred the same in favour of petitioner/his brother/his mother, however, no bank transaction has been shown as regards any payment made in their favour from the accounts of complainant himself. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that even if the details of payments as alleged and pointed out in the reply submitted on behalf of the complainant are taken at face value, the same nowhere co-relate with the payments alleged in the FIR. He also points out that such payments as alleged from an NRI could not have been permitted to be transferred being in violation of statutory provision under different relevant statutes. 2.2 Learned counsel further points out that there is no dispute that the parties to the present case were having transactions relating to purchase of properties and that is why even the documents produced by the complainant also reflect the entries of return of amount as well. He further submits that in such circumstances the dispute being in relation to property transactions, no custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required. 2.3 Learned counsel further points out that agreement to sell dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) as relied upon by the complainant with his reply was nothing but an act of extortion on his part. In this regard, he further points out to Annexure P-3 i.e. a complaint moved at the instance of father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which was delivered by hand to the police officials, as per which petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were picked up and ransom calls were received by the family besides threats at the hands of the complainant and his mother. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Siddharam Satlinkappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 to contend that in the given facts, the petitioners were entitled for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. 3. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed at the instance of learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel representing the complainant while submitting that as per Whatsapp chats between the parties which was even not seriously disputed by the petitioners, it was apparent that certain transactions relating to exchange of money did take place between the parties which were even acknowledged by the petitioners and, thus, they having defrauded the complainant under the assurance of investing it against purchase of property, however, having misappropriated the same, were not entitled for grant of concession of anticipatory bail in the present case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. 5. In the given facts and circumstances, wherein it has been admitted that the parties i.e. petitioners and the complainant were having transactions relating to investment and purchase of property, the allegations by the complainant that petitioners usurped the entire money transferred by the complainant without purchasing any property or share in the name of complainant, cannot be said to be a simpliciter case of civil nature. From the contents of the FIR and the reply filed on behalf of the complainant, wherein certain Whatsapp chats from mobile number of petitioner No.1 (9877153713) have been produced on record and have not been controverted by the petitioners at all, it can be prima facie formed that the petitioners induced complainant by forwarding him the sketch-site plan of a property besides one video relating to the project to invest therein. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 even acknowledged having received different amounts including some amount from the maternal uncle of the complainant as well, regarding which the complainant also produced statement of account of his maternal uncle having Bank Account No.00000055140888869 of State Bank of India. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 even acknowledged having received different amounts including some amount from the maternal uncle of the complainant as well, regarding which the complainant also produced statement of account of his maternal uncle having Bank Account No.00000055140888869 of State Bank of India. The aforesaid statement of account available at page nos.25 to 28 of reply filed by the complainant, records that some amount was transferred to the account of NNB Estate Developer (having Bank Account No.10142695202 of IDFC First Bank Limited) on 02.01.2024 which happens to be a proprietorship concern of petitioner No.1. All these facts do require custodial investigation by the police and explanation from the side of petitioners. 6. Further in the humble opinion of this Court, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that the agreement to sell dated 18.03.2024, entered into between the petitioners and the mother of complainant was an act of extortion, has no legs to stand as no proof has been placed on record about any complaint in this regard being served on the police authorities. On the other hand on account of admitted existence of such agreement, possibility cannot be ruled out that despite having been duped of by the petitioners, the complainant still gave them another chance to mend themselves and settle the entire dispute, against which even they failed and backed out. 7. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, upon a cumulative analysis of the facts and circumstances, prima facie case of criminal breach of trust is duly made out against the petitioners, they having deceived the complainant with fraudulent and dishonest intent having obtained huge amount from him and misappropriated the same, thus, considering the gravity thereof offence besides, the manner in which the complainant has been induced and also keeping in mind the object of fair and impartial investigation, the petitioners are not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Rather their custodial interrogation is imperative to determine the trail of money. This is also settled law as laid down in case of Srikant Upadhvav & others vs. State of Bihar and another’ that power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. This is also settled law as laid down in case of Srikant Upadhvav & others vs. State of Bihar and another’ that power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Relevant paragraph No.8 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr. ).”. 8. Even the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlinkappa Mhetre’s case (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners specifically records in sub-para (viii) that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused and, thus, the same may not come to the rescue of petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 10. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.