CRM-M-68425 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 211(2) PRABHJIT SINGH STATE OF CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case registered against the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar Police Commissionerate Ludhiana 2. 68425-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PRABHJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Arjun Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Shiv C. Bhola, Advocate and Ms. Navdeep Kaur Bhola, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 257 gistered against the petitioner under Sections 120 the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar Police Commissionerate Ludhiana. On 23.12.2025, following order “By this common order, both the aforesaid petitions filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 are being adjudicated, as both arise out of the same FIR and impugned order. Since the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68425-2025 Date of decision: 16.01.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Arjun Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Shiv C. Bhola, Advocate and Ms. Navdeep Kaur Bhola, Advocate Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the FIR No. 257, dated 31.10.2025 was under Sections 120-B, 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District .2025, following order was passed by this Court: - By this common order, both the aforesaid petitions filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 are being adjudicated, as both arise out of the same FIR and impugned order. Since the - Petitioner s Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the was B, 406, 408 and 420 of , District By this common order, both the aforesaid petitions filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 are being adjudicated, as GURPREET 2026.01.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-68425 facts of both the petitions are identical, hence to avoid petitioners, in connivance with each other, duped the proceedings, and consequently, a seven force to this argument, reliance has been plac 68425-2025 facts of both the petitions are identical, hence to avoid repetition, the same are taken from CRM Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that, the petitioners, in connivance with each other, duped the complainant of her money, which she had deposited in the form of FDRs. Hence, the present FIR No. 257 was against the petitioners under Sections 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in th is submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant are not corroborated by any evidence; rather, the complainant is in habit of opening various FDRS, redeeming the same, and after utilizing the interest, reopening them. With re disputed amount, it is submitted that the complainant was maintaining a credit card with the bank, for which there was an outstanding balance of Rs.3,41,947/ sanctioned credit limit, the bank had initiated legal recov proceedings, and consequently, a seven to the complainant by the bank vide letter dated 21.08.2024 to clear the unpaid dues. Upon her inaction, an amount of Rs.3,41,946/- was eventually redeemed from her FDR (wherein a lien was marked) on 02.09.2024, and the remaining amount was transferred into her bank account, which was withdrawn by her vide self cheque no. 000034 dated 5.12.2024 amounting to Rs.3,88,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant filed a similar complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, on the same allegations, which was thoroughly investigated by the Banking Ombudsman, who, after recording their findings denied the claim of the complainant. To lend force to this argument, reliance has been plac P-13 (Report of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of -2- facts of both the petitions are identical, hence to avoid the same are taken from CRM-M-67807-2025. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that, the petitioners, in connivance with each other, duped the complainant of her money, which she had deposited in the form of FDRs. Hence, the present FIR No. 257 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar, It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant are not corroborated by any evidence; rather, the complainant is in habit of opening various FDRS, redeeming the same, and after utilizing the interest, reopening them. With regard to the disputed amount, it is submitted that the complainant was maintaining a credit card with the bank, for which there was an balance of Rs.3,41,947/-. Due to exhaustion of the sanctioned credit limit, the bank had initiated legal recovery proceedings, and consequently, a seven-day notice was issued to the complainant by the bank vide letter dated 21.08.2024 to clear the unpaid dues. Upon her inaction, an amount of was eventually redeemed from her FDR (wherein rked) on 02.09.2024, and the remaining amount was transferred into her bank account, which was withdrawn by her vide self cheque no. 000034 dated 5.12.2024 amounting to . It is submitted that the complainant filed a e Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, on the same allegations, which was thoroughly investigated by the Banking Ombudsman, who, after recording their findings denied the claim of the complainant. To lend force to this argument, reliance has been placed upon Annexure 13 (Report of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of - facts of both the petitions are identical, hence to avoid Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that, the petitioners, in connivance with each other, duped the complainant of her money, which she had deposited in the form registered B, 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar, It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are e present case. It is submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant are not corroborated by any evidence; rather, the complainant is in habit of opening various FDRS, redeeming the same, and after gard to the disputed amount, it is submitted that the complainant was maintaining a credit card with the bank, for which there was an . Due to exhaustion of the ery day notice was issued to the complainant by the bank vide letter dated 21.08.2024 to clear the unpaid dues. Upon her inaction, an amount of was eventually redeemed from her FDR (wherein rked) on 02.09.2024, and the remaining amount was transferred into her bank account, which was withdrawn by her vide self cheque no. 000034 dated 5.12.2024 amounting to . It is submitted that the complainant filed a e Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, on the same allegations, which was thoroughly investigated by the Banking Ombudsman, who, after recording their findings denied the claim of the complainant. To lend ed upon Annexure GURPREET 2026.01.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-68425 India). It is further submitted that the entire case rests on period of booking of the FDRs. He submits that the custodial prematurely encashed her FDRs. He further submits that the petitioners, being custodians of her money deposited with the Investiga Agency. In the event of arrest, they shall be admitted to interim 68425-2025 India). It is further submitted that the entire case rests on documentary evidence, which has already been submitted to the investigating agency. It is submitted that the petition ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. He submits that the registered mobile number of the complainant, including secure authentication logs, internal banking credentials, were modified, which coincides with the period of booking of the FDRs. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and prays that both the petitions be dismissed. Mr. Shiv Bhola, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions of the learned counsel for the State and further submits that the complainant neither o prematurely encashed her FDRs. He further submits that the petitioners, being custodians of her money deposited with the bank, have actively conspired with each other and duped the complainant of her hard-earned money. Thus, the pe not deserve any concession from this Court. List on 16.01.2026. In the meantime, the petitioners in both the cases are hereby directed to join the investigation within one week from today, and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer, and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, they shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the -3- India). It is further submitted that the entire case rests on documentary evidence, which has already been submitted to the investigating agency. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while as opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. He submits that the registered mobile number of the complainant, including secure authentication logs, internal access logs, and net banking credentials, were modified, which coincides with the period of booking of the FDRs. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and prays that both ocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions of the learned counsel for the State and further submits that the complainant neither opted for net banking nor prematurely encashed her FDRs. He further submits that the petitioners, being custodians of her money deposited with the bank, have actively conspired with each other and duped the earned money. Thus, the petitioners do not deserve any concession from this Court. In the meantime, the petitioners in both the cases are hereby directed to join the investigation within one week from today, and would appear as and when required by the ting Officer, and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, they shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the - India). It is further submitted that the entire case rests on documentary evidence, which has already been submitted to the ers are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, it is prayed On the other hand, the learned State counsel while as opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. He submits that the registered mobile number of the complainant, including access logs, and net banking credentials, were modified, which coincides with the period of booking of the FDRs. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and prays that both ocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions of the learned counsel for the State and further pted for net banking nor prematurely encashed her FDRs. He further submits that the petitioners, being custodians of her money deposited with the bank, have actively conspired with each other and duped the titioners do In the meantime, the petitioners in both the cases are hereby directed to join the investigation within one week from today, and would appear as and when required by the ting Officer, and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, they shall be admitted to interim GURPREET 2026.01.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-68425 Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide 3. the order dated investigation. 4. Subhash Raj and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. interim order dated petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 16.01.2026 Gurpreet 68425-2025 Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Cou investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Subhash Raj, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court, petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No `ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -4- Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of Court, the petitioner has joined the Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the passed by this Court, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No - Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of rt, the petitioner has joined the SI , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the the conditions as provided (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.01.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.