JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant-Gurdeep Singh, apprehending his arrest, in FIR No.7/2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), with Police Station, Sayri, District Solan, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the I.O./police of Police Station, Sayari, to release the applicant on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case. 3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in this case, as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence, for which, he has been named, as accused. 4. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS. 5. According to the applicant, one case, bearing FIR No.252/2021, under Sections 379, 120-B of the IPC, read with Section 21 of the Mines and Mineral Act, was registered against him, with Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. 6. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 7. On 14.02.2025, while granting the interim protection to the applicant, he was directed to join the investigation. 8. On 25.02.2025, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that complainant Harish Verma made a complaint to the police mentioning therein that he is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint. He has obtained land, on lease, in village Haripur, Tehsil Kandaghat, in order to start a water plant. 8.1. According to the complainant, he has started the work for the said water plant. He has contacted Gurdeep Singh (applicant), to purchase the machinery at the reasonable rate. He has apprised the complainant to arrange a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the said machinery. 8.2. Thereafter, on 14.08.2024, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 19.08.2024, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, andon 27.08.2024, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, by transferring the amount to the account of the applicant. On 17.08.2024, the applicant has paid a sum Rs.5,00,000/-, in cash, near McDonald, Zirakpur, and on 28.08.2024, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, in cash, at Hotel Mihal Pahad Ganj, Delhi. 8.3. On 17.08.2024, the applicant has paid a sum Rs.5,00,000/-, in cash, near McDonald, Zirakpur, and on 28.08.2024, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, in cash, at Hotel Mihal Pahad Ganj, Delhi. 8.3. Thereafter, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, at the instance of Gurdeep Singh (applicant), on 19.08.2024, in the bank account of Daljeet Singh and Rs.1,00,000/-, in the bank account of Ajay Kumar. As such, he has paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. 8.4. According to the applicant, despite receiving the said amount, neither the applicant has provided the machinery nor returned the money, as such, he has alleged that action be taken against him. 9. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR in question, has been registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 10. Thereafter, during investigation, requisite correspondence was made to obtain the details of bank account of Gurdeep Singh (applicant) and Daljeet Singh. 11. During investigation, on 15.02.2025, complainant Harish Verma, made a supplementary statement by providing the requisite documents with regard to installation of water plant. He has also provided a copy of the lease deed to the police. 12. As per the status report, on 15.02.2025, in pursuance of the interim protection granted to the applicant, he appeared before the police and disclosed that complainant Harish Kumar, met him in the month of June 2024 at Panchkula. He apprised the applicant that his (complainant’s) nephew is lodged in Jail at Gujarat, in connection with some accident, for the last one year. He has requested him to get his nephew released on bail, upon which, the applicant took Harish Kumar (complainant) to Delhi to a lawyer, namely Pradeep Rai. At that time, one Trilokinath Baba was also with him. The lawyer has demanded his counsel fee, as Rs.60,00,000/- (sixty lacs). Harish (complainant) has paid 50% of the same on 20.08.2024 and remaining was assured to be paid after bail. 13. Thereafter, on 16.08.2024, complainant Harish came back by air. The applicant has disclosed that the said amount, which was transferred was with regard to the counsel fee. 14. As per the status report filed on 25.02.2025, despite repeated directions of the police, the complainant could not produce any document, agreement/affidavit or quotation, which was allegedly taken from Gurdeep Singh. In the status report, which has been filed today, the same stand has been taken. 15. Heard. 16. 14. As per the status report filed on 25.02.2025, despite repeated directions of the police, the complainant could not produce any document, agreement/affidavit or quotation, which was allegedly taken from Gurdeep Singh. In the status report, which has been filed today, the same stand has been taken. 15. Heard. 16. Considering the fact that despite repeated requests made by the Police, the complainant is not producing the requisite documents, on the basis of which, he has alleged against the applicant/accused. Meaning thereby, no case is made out by the Police for custodial interrogation of the applicant. 17. Even otherwise, considering the stand, which has been taken, by the accused (applicant), in this case, qua the release of the nephew of the complainant, on bail, by engaging the services of a lawyer at Delhi, this Court is of the view that non-production of the requisite documents, shall not establish the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused (applicant). 18. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 14.02.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions, as, mentioned in the said order. 19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 20. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 21. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.