JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

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.265 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused induced innocent persons into investing their money in their company on the pretext of multiplying the same. 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 the petitioner is neither the partner nor a shareholder in the company. He further argued that the co-accused Ramesh Paul is the Director of the said firm and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said offence. He argued that even as per FIR, no direct allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He argued that as per the averments in the FIR, there was a contract under which the complainants have made payment for which they were receiving returns till March, 2025. He further submitted that the petitioner was not even authorized to manage the financial activities of the company as they were solely managed by the co-accused. 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. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as she is not involved in any other case. 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, Ludhiana, vide order dated 10.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he 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. He argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with other co-accused induced the complainants/investors to invest money in their company by assuring fixed monthly returns for a period of ten years under the minimum guaranteed rent model. He further argued that the petitioner along with her husband actively induced innocent persons and after adopting deceptive mechanism, willfully stopped payments. He further argued that even after default in payments, the petitioner executed a fresh written assurance dated 18.06.2025, again promising to resume payments, which clearly shows continued inducement and dishonest conduct. He 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, to trace the money trail and to establish exact role of other co-accused. Hence, he 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. Heard.

8. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She is specifically named in the FIR. She is alleged to have cheated the complainants for huge amount by luring them to invest into her company, thus, her custodial interrogation is required to uncover the modus operand