IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Inderpreet Kaur …Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. GBS Dhillon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdeep S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate and Ms. Reetika Sabharwal, Advocate for the complainant.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.0006 dated 29.1.2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered against her at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is though proprietor of the firm namely, M/s Fresh Nuts Overseas, but her husband, namely, Bhagat Preet Singh, being the Chief Executive Officer was handling the business affairs. She never contacted complainant or dealt with them, neither did she generate Swift Code, which, as per complainant was found to be fake, nor any commercial transaction was executed between her and complainant party. It has been prayed that she was just a ‘dummy’ head, all the decisions were taken by her husband Bhagat Preet Singh, who manages the business affairs of the firm. Thus, since she has joined the investigation, has not misused concession of interim anticipatory bail granted to her, the same be confirmed.

3. Per Contra, while opposing the petition for grant of bail, learned counsel for complainant as also learned State counsel have drawn the attention of this Court to the Status Report filed by way of affidavit of Gurdev Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (West), Ludhiana. In the same, apart from reiterating the facts leading to the lodging of the FIR, it has been mentioned that petitioner is proprietor of the aforesaid firm M/s Fresh Nuts Overseas and two bank accounts of her firm are being looked after by her. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the firm of petitioner has committed a huge fraud of Rs.7.18 crores and has also forged bank statement, therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record.

5. While issuing notice of motion, petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail in the same terms as passed in CRM-M-33275-2024 by this Court vide order dated 14.8.2024.

6. In view of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that petitioner had joined investigation consequent to the order dated 14.8.2024 passed by this Court and there is nothing on record from where an inference can be drawn that she (P) misused this concession accordingly, interim bail granted vide order dated 14.8.2024 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS. Further, petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon petitioner, she will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

7. Petition stands allowed.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)

13.11.2025 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No