IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Aditi Gupta ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Senior Advocate with Mr. Om Malhan, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.148 dated 23.09.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an alleged act of fraud and forgery committed against the complainant, Puneet Gupta, son of Sh. Ram Gupta, resident of Shrisham Trading Company, Chitti Road, Lambra, District Jalandhar. The complainant alleged that while filing his income tax return through his Chartered Accountant, he discovered that a bank account had been opened in his name at Kotak Mahindra Bank without his knowledge or consent. Upon further inquiry at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch UG-2, City Point, Nakodar Road, Near Bajra, Jalandhar, it was found that Account No. 4348865055 had been fraudulently opened using his name and forged identification documents. It was further revealed that the mobile number and e-mail ID linked with the said account were registered in the name of his brother, Vineet Gupta, son of Ram Gupta (petitioner herein), who was actively operating the same. The complainant further alleged that his brother, Vineet Gupta (petitioner herein), in connivance with his wife, Aditi Gupta, and certain officials of Kotak Mahindra Bank, fraudulently opened the said account using falsified documents, and thereafter carried out unauthorized and deceitful financial transactions for wrongful gain. On inquiry, it was allegedly found that the accused persons, by dishonest and deceitful means, misappropriated the complainant’s funds which led to registration of the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is a housewife who has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of family and property disputes. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant, who happens to be the real brother-in- law of the petitioner, and his mother has earlier initiated multiple proceedings against the petitioner and her husband under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which have been decided in their favour and that the present FIR is a counterblast to the same. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no role in the alleged opening or operation of the bank account in question. No direct act of impersonation, forgery or fraudulent transaction has been attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that her name appears as a nominee in the account in question which by itself, does not constitute any offence. According to learned counsel, the investigation has been conducted in a biased and incomplete manner ignoring material evidence. Furthermore, no act of forgery, impersonation or direct handling of funds has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel asserts that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are entirely baseless and devoid of any credible or cogent material. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the instant case as nothing has to be recovered from her. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from her. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case she is enlarged on pre- arrest b