IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.211 Decided On : October 13, 2025 Yogita .... Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * *

Present : Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.211 dated 11.12.2024, under Section 420 IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant namely Vipul Jain moved a complaint, submitting therein that he along with his father Vinod Kumar Jain and brother Gagan Jain, was running a firm under the name of Calcutta Hosiery Emporium at Ludhiana. One Amit Kumar was working as an Accountant in his firm and was assigned different duties like preparation of bills, placing orders, looking after bank operations etc. He also used to maintain pass-books and cheque-books of complainant, his family members and of the firm as well. The ATM cards of employees of the firm were also kept with said Amit Kumar. Every month, he used to transfer the salary of employees from firm’s bank account and also used to get them deducted through ATM cards and give it to the employees. On 14.11.2024, on receiving call from the complainant’s bank regarding issuance of cheque amount of Rs.5 lakh, he reached the bank and found that the said cheque was not issued by him. On suspicion, when he tried to call Amit Kumar, he ran away by scaling the wall of the firm and never returned. On further inquiry, it was found by the complainant that from 29.12.2023 onwards, he had embezzled the amount of Rs.81,26,830/- on various occasions.

The petitioner is wife of said Amit Kumar and her name surfaced as accused in the present case on the basis of her account statement, which was collected during investigation. It was alleged that she also used to work in the firm along with her husband and they both, in connivance with each other, had been crediting accounts of various employees including one employee namely Triveni Yadav even after his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the version of prosecution is highly unbelievable as it would not be possible for the bank authorities to pass a number of cheques without verifying the signatures of complainant. The message of every transaction would have been received by the complainant and therefore, there is no possibility of such a huge fraud by husband of the petitioner. Whatever transaction was done by her husband, was done at the instance of complainant himself and not otherwise.

Moreover, the petitioner was not initially named. Her name was implicated at a later stage just to harass the petitioner. Even the allegations are taken to be true for the sake of arguments, there is no direct role attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. He has further urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and therefore, she be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the present bail petition while contending that the petitioner, in connivance with her husband, committed fraud of Rs.81,26,830/- by forging signatures of complainant and his family members on the cheques. Even amount of Rs.12,98,561.97 was credited to the account of the petitioner during period from 13.12.2023 to 03.12.2024. He has also submitted that there is ample documentary proof against the petitioner and her husband. Learned State counsel further apprised the Court that after getting to know complaint being moved against them, both of them got issued their Passports