Custodial interrogation is essential in financial fraud cases involving complex money trails and conspiracies; defenses regarding the nature of transactions are matters of trial and do not justify the grant of anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

(Oral)

1. First petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 438 Cr.P.C. of 1973) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.46 dated 17.03.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, 1860) at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

2. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Raj Kumar alleging therein that the petitioner alongwith co-accused assured the complainant that they would send his son and daughter-in-law abroad and, on that pretext, received an amount of Rs.15,79,750/- from him. However, neither the son and daughter-in-law of the complainant were sent abroad nor the entire amount was returned to the complainant. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.6,77,000/- was returned, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.9,02,750/- has not been paid back. On the basis of said allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that co-accused Baltej Singh, who is son of the petitioner, has been residing in the United Kingdom since the year 2023 and the complainant party as well as the accused persons were well known to each other and belonged to the same village. It is further argued that the complainant wanted to send his son Gurmeet Das and daughter-in-law Rachhpal Rani to the United Kingdom and had contacted one travel agent namely Gurkirtan Singh, who introduced certain UK based lawyers for securing visas. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that since the complainant was not personally acquainted with the said UK based lawyers, he requested the petitioner and her son Baltej Singh to facilitate the transactions and to help in transfer of the amount. It is submitted that the complainant himself requested that certain amounts be transferred in the Indian bank account of the petitioner so that the same could further be remitted to the UK based lawyers through co-accused Baltej Singh. It is contended that substantial amounts were in fact transferred by Baltej Singh to the accounts of the UK based lawyers towards visa processing charges and the petitioner had not retained any amount for herself. It is further argued that visa applications of the complainant’s son and daughter-in-law were actually filed by the UK based lawyers and, therefore, the allegation levelled in the FIR that no visa applications were ever moved is factually incorrect. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has concealed the material fact regarding filing of visa applications and has lodged the present FIR only after the visas were rejected and refund was demanded from the travel agent as well as from the petitioner and her son. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the entire case is based upon documentary evidence and bank transactions and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. It is further argued that the petitioner is a lady having no criminal antecedents and has been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation merely because certain bank transactions had taken place in her account at the asking of