False Assurances Of Govt Jobs To Unemployed Youth Constitute Grave Offence: P&H High Court Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail Despite Compromise

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that duping unemployed youth on the false promise of securing government jobs constitutes a grave offence with serious societal repercussions, while rejecting a plea for anticipatory bail in a fraud case. The Court observed that a compromise between the parties cannot dilute the seriousness of allegations involving cheating and forgery.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "the use of forged appointment letters and false assurances of Government employment to exploit unemployed youth constitutes a grave offence having serious societal ramifications and undermines public confidence in institutional processes. Merely because the parties have subsequently entered into a compromise or certain amounts are alleged to have been repaid would not, at this stage, dilute the seriousness or gravity of the allegations."

The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates active participation of the petitioners in inducing the complainant and receiving money pursuant thereto, the Court added. 

As per the prosecution case, the accused allegedly duped the complainant on the pretext of securing a government job in the Air Force/Army/Military Engineering Services. They allegedly projected themselves as well-connected individuals and induced the complainant to transfer large sums of money, initially ₹7.5 lakh, and later more amounts totaling approximately ₹28 lakh.

The complainant was allegedly provided with forged appointment letters and called to Chandigarh under the guise of training, where he stayed for nearly three months and incurred additional expenses. It later emerged that no such recruitment process existed and the documents were fabricated.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was a successive bail application without any substantial change in circumstances. It further contended that the allegations reveal a well-planned conspiracy targeting unemployed youth and involve serious offences beyond a private dispute.

The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that they were themselves victims of the main accused and had acted on assurances given to them. They also relied on a compromise reached with the complainant and argued that they had cooperated with the investigation.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that although successive anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable, they can only be entertained upon showing a substantial change in circumstances. The Court found that the compromise between the parties did not qualify as such a change in the present case.

Justice Goel highlighted that the investigation conducted thus far prima facie reveals that the appointment letters relied upon by the accused-petitioners were forged and fabricated and that no such recruitment process existed in the concerned Government departments.

Prima facie, the allegations disclose not merely an offence of cheating simpliciter but a well-coordinated conspiracy involving active participation of all the petitioners in inducing the complainant to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of securing Government employment, added the Court.

Emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed that using forged government documents and false assurances of employment to exploit unemployed youth undermines public confidence and has wider societal impact.

Finding no fresh grounds to reconsider the earlier rejection, the Court dismissed the petition.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Aman, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Title: Sonu and others v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order