JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

CRM-47692-2025

This is an application for impleading the applicants as respondents in the present case, who are the victims in the present case.

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Main Case

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.254 dated 04.07.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused under the name of Pride Nidhi Limited Bank duped the complainant and others for a sum of Rs.1.40 crores on the pretext of doubling their money in 26 months. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that earlier also, the complainant had filed the similar complaint against the petitioner and others and after investigation of the matter, the same was found to be false. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered because of political pressure. He further argued that Pride Nidhi Limited Bank (PNL) is a duly registered company. He further submits that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motive as the complainants were earlier employed with the bank and now they are defaming and harassing the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner has neither committed any embezzlement nor misappropriated any funds. He further submitted that entire family of petitioner has been implicated in the FIR, although, they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further submits that in fact, the dispute in the present case is of civil nature, which has been given criminal colour by registering the present FIR. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 30.09.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. She further argued that the petitioner along with other co-accused induced the complainant/investors to invest their money in their bank by giving false promises to double their money in 26 months. He further argued that the said bank is operated by the petitioner as well as co-accused Rais Khan and they have duped the complainant/others for huge amount of Rs.1.40 crores and as such, are the main perpetrators of the crime. Further, a perusal of bank accounts reveal tht whole fraud involves a total amount of Rs.58-60 crores. She further submits that investors were inducted to deposit money into bank account of the petitioner under PRD Scheme. She further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused and to recover the amount involved and to trace similarly placed victims. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Learned counsel for the private respondents opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner contends that the petitione