##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21683-2025 Decided on :27.10.2026 Aparna Puri . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the main case, i.e. CRM-M-21683-2025, is preponed from 02.12.2026 to

27.10.2026, i.e. today.

2. By way of the instant petition, petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the trial Courts at Kurukshetra, Karnal and Kaithal, permitting her to furnish a common personal bond and surety bond(s) of a reasonable amount for all the complaints instituted against her and M/s Amira Pure Foods Private Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).

3. In support of the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.149 of 2024, decided on 22.08.2024, reported as 2024 INSC 617).

4. Record reveals that, vide order dated 12.05.2025, this Court had already noticed the contention of petitioner that she was merely an employee of the company and had been appointed to sign the disputed cheques, on account of which she was facing more than 120 complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court observed that the bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner in one case could also be considered as common bail bonds/surety bonds for the remaining cases also, subject to the separate orders granting bail in those cases.

The relevant part of the order dated 12.05.2025 reads as under:

“ On request of learned State counsel, adjourned to

14.07.2025.

Meanwhile, in the eventuality of granting of bail to the petitioner in any such case and furnishing of bail bonds/surety bonds, thereon it may be considered as common bail bond/surety bond qua all other remaining cases also, if any separate order(s) of bail is/are passed thereon.”

5. On 04.10.2025, petitioner appeared before the trial Court at Kaithal, in complaint case titled M/s Sat Narain v. M/s Amira Pure Foods, bearing CIS No. 978 of 2016 and since, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is bailable, petitioner was ₹

admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 2,00,000/-

with one surety in the like amount. The requisite bail bonds in the said complaint case were furnished by the petitioner .

6. In another complaint case pending within Kaithal Sessions Division, titled M/s Mansa Devi v. M/s Amira Pure Foods, bearing CIS No. 1100 of 2016 (A-4), trial Court took note of the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by this Court, and the fact that petitioner has already furnished bail bonds in CIS No.978 of 2016, however, directed the petitioner to furnish fresh common surety bonds to the tune of ₹

1,00,00,000/-, to the satisfaction of the Court.

7. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, being an employee of the accused company, is facing approximately 120 complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, out of which 85 cases are pending before the concerned trial Courts, within Kaithal Sessions Division.

Further submits that it is not feasible for the petitioner that qua each of the bail orders, she can furnish these many numbers of bail bonds/surety bonds etc. It is almost impossible for anyone to arrange these many sureties to earn the benefit of bail orders in all such cases.

8. The issue involved in the present petition can be appropriately examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Gandhi’s case (supra). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the difficul