IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 24.03.2026 Pardeep Maini alias Honey and another …...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. S.S. Nagra, Advocate and Ms. Himani Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG Punjab ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.91, dated 17.05.2025, under Sections 381, 408, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Division B, District Amritsar.

2. On 13.11.2025, following order was passed:

“(i) *** *** *** ***

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that allegations in the FIR have been levelled merely on the basis of suspicion, arising out of the complainant’s grievance that petitioners stopped working in his shop and joined employment with another shop, which is situated just opposite to that of the complainant’s shop. It is submitted that without any factual basis, complainant initially lodged an FIR dated 23.10.2022 regarding the alleged theft of an amount of Rs.60,000–70,000/-, but as no clue could be found during the investigation, a new version has now been concocted. In the present FIR, it has been alleged that during the period from 01.04.2024 to 25.07.2024, approximately Rs.22 lakhs were credited into the petitioners’ bank accounts, purportedly on account of pilferage of stock from the complainant’s shop.

(iii) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material or evidence whatsoever to substantiate these allegations, which are based purely on suspicion and conjecture. It is argued that such unsubstantiated allegations cannot justify the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. Petitioners are, however, ready and willing to join the investigation and furnish a complete explanation to the Investigating Officer regarding the source of amounts credited to their bank accounts. Thus, it is prayed that petitioners be granted the concession of anticipatory bail in the present case.

(iv) Notice of motion.

(v) On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate, puts an appearance on behalf of the complainant.

(vi) Adjourned to 12.01.2026.

(vii) Meanwhile, petitioners shall not be arrested. However, issue of joining of investigation by the petitioners would be examined on the next date of hearing, after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State counsel.

(viii) Let the petitioners furnish an explanation with respect to all their bank accounts, disclosing the source of amounts credited therein, before the Investigating Officer prior to the next date of hearing.

However, it shall be open to the complainant to assist the Investigating Officer by submitting any relevant material or evidence in support of the allegations levelled by him.”

3. Today, from the status report learned State counsel refers paragraph No. 7 and submits that petitioner, who was receiving a meagre salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month was found to have a total sum of Rs. 9 lacs credited into his bank account. Therefore, it is highly probable that while petitioner-Pardeep Maini alias Honey, had left his job i.e. complainant's Handloom shop in February, 2023, he had no other source of income. Consequently, it would have been impossible for him to deposit such a substantial amount into his bank account, and same is alleged by the complainant.

4. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. Despite being asked repeatedly to provide any documentary evidence establishing a connection between the amount deposited in the bank account of petitioner and the bank or handloom records of the complainant, no such evidence h