IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpreet Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of Decision: 08.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 08.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gurbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.86 dated 26.02.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

2. The gravamen of the instant FIR reflects that it has been registered on the basis of a complaint moved by the complainant-Kulwant Singh, who alleged that he was searching employment for his nephew and came into contact with co-accused of the petitioner namely Jagdish Singh @ Popi, who falsely represented himself to be a Clerk to a Judge of the High Court and assured securing a job as a Reader at the Punjab & Haryana High Court for his nephew. On such inducement, the complainant and his ₹

relatives transferred an amount of approximately 6,80,000/- into the bank account of the said co-accused on different dates. It is further alleged that the accused persons prepared forged documents, including fake High Court letterheads, and took the complainant to Chandigarh on the pretext of completing formalities. Subsequently, upon suspicion, the complainant confronted the accused persons at Dhanaula, where it was alleged that the petitioner (herein), along with co-accused persons, admitted to having cheated the complainant as part of a conspiracy. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been attributed to her in the alleged offences of cheating or forgery. He has further argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, as the entire alleged amount stands transferred to the account of co-accused Jagdish Singh. He has further iterated and that the petitioner is a lady aged 44 years with clean antecedents, is willing to join and cooperate with the investigation. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature involving cheating, forgery and an organized modus operandi. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is an active participant in the office in question and she, along with co-accused, induced the complainant.

Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific pertain to an organized racket of cheating innocent persons on the pretext of securing jobs in the High Court by use of forged documents. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to have been part of the group which collectively admitted to the act of cheating. At this stage