IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

127 CRM-M-10551-2026 Date of Decision : 23.02.2026 RAM SHANKAR ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing).

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.30 dated 23.01.2026, registered against him at Police Station Division No.8, District Ludhiana, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 318(4), 306 of BNS.

2. Relevant facts as can be inferred from the documents on record are noticed hereinbelow:-

Vikram Jain, s/o Mangat Rai Jain, running a jewelry showroom under the name and style of “M.B. Jain Jewellers” on College Road near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint pointing therein that he has been running the aforesaid shop for the last 8 years. He has employed 10 persons at the showroom, out of whom Ram Shankar (present petitioner), permanent resident of Gonda, District U.P. and currently residing at Mohalla Shan Enclave, Ishar Nagar Shimlapuri, Ludhiana has been with him since 2017. Ram Shankar (P) was looking after the accounts, sale, purchase, stock management etc. Complainant next pointed out that whenever any jewellery item is sold to customer, computer generated bills are handed over to them. Ram Shanker (P), Manager, has been handling the entire show pertaining to sales, purchase and stock management etc. Few days ago, he (C) suspected some discrepancy in the stock record. On 22.01.2026, he asked Ram Shankar to show the records, who assured that the entire record of bills, sales, purchase, stocks etc. would be shown on the following day i.e. 23.01.2026. In the morning, when he (C) opened his showroom, he noticed that Ram Shankar (P) had not put in appearance. After waiting for a long time, he repeatedly called up Ram Shanker, whose phone was switched off. His (C) worst fears turned correct as on checking the sales stock in the computer, he found that Ram Shankar (P) had generated some bills in cash about sales of which he had no information. Extra entries had been made by Ram Shankar with an intention to cheat him. Complainant further alleged that when the entire stock (gold ornaments) lying in the showroom were checked, lot of them were missing. Primarily with this backdrop, requested the police authorities to catch of hold of aforesaid Ram Shankar and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings.

On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No.30 dated 23.01.2026, u/s 318(4), 306 of BNS, was registered against petitioner.

3. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in terms of order dated 11.02.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who had been working in the jewellery showroom of complainant since 2017 and had been discharging his duties honestly to the best of his ability, has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the sequence of events did not unfold in the manner as suggested by complainant. Petitioner had apprised complainant about the misdeeds of some of the other employees but instead of initiating action against them, present complaint was lodged levelling baseless and false allegations against him.

The next leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that petitioner was working under the supervision of complainant, the stock and the other records used to be checked on daily basis. Thus, the question of generating false bills and siphoning off some of the stock does not arise. In any eventuality, the entire case of the prosec