2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TALJINDER SINGH @ CASHIER TALJINDER ISNGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M_20168_2026
##PAGE1##
CRM-M-20168-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.217
CRM-M-20168-2026
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
TALJINDER SINGH @ CASHIER TALJINDER SINGH ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bhatia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No. 106 dated 19.07.2025, registered at Police Station Qadian, District
Batala, for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC (corresponding to
Section 316 BNS).
2. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on the
complaint of Gurmeet Singh, who alleged that he was maintaining a savings
bank account in Bank of Baroda and an amount of approximately Rs.30
lakhs was lying deposited therein. It has been alleged that during the year
2024, without the consent or knowledge of the complainant, the mobile
number linked with his bank account was changed/closed and different
amounts were fraudulently transferred from his account by the present
petitioner, who was working as Cashier in the said bank. As per the
allegations, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was transferred to the account of the
ANU
2026.05.14 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
##PAGE2##CRM-M-20168-2026 2
father of the petitioner namely Baldev Singh on 06.11.2024, another amount
of Rs.11 lakhs was transferred on 11.11.2024 and further amounts were also
transferred to the accounts of co-accused/co-workers namely Deep Mattu,
Ashwani Kumar, Ankit Goyal and Mandeep Kaur. In this manner, an amount
to the tune of about Rs.30 lakhs is alleged to have been misappropriated
from the account of the complainant, whereupon the present FIR was
registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been in custody since 03.08.2025 and has already suffered
incarceration for about eight months and six days. It is further submitted that
the trial is still at the initial stage, as out of 80 prosecution witnesses, none
has yet been examined, and the case is based mainly on documentary
evidence already forming part of the challan. It is, thus, argued that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an
indefinite period. Learned counsel has also contended that the allegations
levelled against the petitioner are vague, false and fictitious, and that he has
been made a scapegoat in the present case. It has been further stated that the
petitioner is a young person, the sole breadwinner of the family, having
responsibility to maintain his aged parents and wife, and he is a permanent
resident of Gurdaspur with deep roots in society. It is also contended that no
other FIR is pending against him, he has not been declared a proclaimed
offender, no proclamation proceedings are pending, and he undertakes to
abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
present petition and submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in a
ANU
2026.05.14 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
##PAGE3##CRM-M-20168-2026 3
serious economic offence involving misappropriation of a huge amount from
the accounts of innocent bank customers. It has been argued that the
allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and specifically attribute
to him the manipulation of banking records and unauthorized transfer of
amounts from the accounts of various account holders to the accounts of his
relatives and co-accused persons. Learned State counsel has further
submitted that the challan/final report already stands presented, charges have
been framed and as many as 80 prosecution witnesses are cited in the case,
out of whom material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further
contended t